CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1978

Groner v. Angel Guardian Home

This case involves an action to recover damages for breach of an employment contract due to alleged age discrimination. The parties appealed from an order regarding interrogatories, which was subsequently modified upon plaintiff's motion for reargument. The court dismissed the appeal from the initial order, deeming it superseded. The orders dated March 15, 1978, and May 15, 1978, were modified to include provisions for redacting identifying information from interrogatory answers, limiting the scope of several interrogatories, and mandating strict confidentiality for all disclosures. The court affirmed the orders as modified, emphasizing the need to balance disclosure policies with the confidentiality requirements of the Social Services Law.

age discriminationemployment contractbreachinterrogatoriesdisclosureconfidentialityappellate reviewKings County Supreme CourtSocial Services LawCPLR
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. News World Communications, Inc.

Judge Silverman dissents from an order, arguing for its reversal, the granting of a protective order, and the striking of interrogatories. The case involves the State Insurance Fund's claim against News World Communications, Inc., for unpaid workers' compensation and disability insurance premiums. Silverman contends the interrogatories, spanning 20 pages, are excessively burdensome and represent an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs and funding of the Unification Church, which is connected to the defendant newspaper, 'The News World'. The judge believes this inquiry, with its First Amendment implications, is irrelevant to determining the amount of premiums due.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsDisability Insurance PremiumsProtective OrderInterrogatoriesDiscovery AbuseFirst Amendment RightsReligious FreedomBurdensome DisclosureInsurance FundNewspaper Industry
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morua v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Francisco Morua, an employee, suffered work-related head and back injuries in 1985 and sought lifetime benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act, claiming incurable insanity. The jury denied his claim, prompting an appeal. A key issue on appeal was the admissibility of expert witness testimony where the defendant, State Farm, failed to verify its supplemental answers to interrogatories identifying the expert. The appellate court, aligning with precedents, ruled that supplemental answers to interrogatories must be verified. Consequently, the trial court erred in admitting the unverified expert testimony, leading to the reversal of the judgment and a remand for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationLifetime BenefitsIncurable InsanityExpert Witness TestimonyDiscovery RulesInterrogatoriesVerification RequirementTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewReversal and Remand
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Ortiz

Nathaniel L. Ortiz, convicted of drug conspiracy and firearm possession, filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence, alleging multiple errors. His claims included constructive amendment of the indictment, erroneous admission of co-conspirator testimony, failure to use special interrogatories, and appellate error. The court determined that most arguments were procedurally barred because they were not raised during his direct appeal. Addressing the merits, the judge found no constructive amendment, affirmed the admissibility of the testimony, and upheld the discretion in not using special interrogatories. Consequently, the motion was denied, as Ortiz failed to demonstrate a sufficient basis for relief under the statute.

28 U.S.C. § 2255 MotionVacate SentenceCorrect SentenceCrack Cocaine ConspiracyFirearm PossessionConstructive AmendmentHearsay EvidenceCo-conspirator TestimonySpecial InterrogatoriesProcedural Bar
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Curtis B.

A neglect proceeding was initiated by a worker of the Department of Welfare of the City of New York against parents, alleging severe neglect and abuse of their child, Ronnie, citing multiple injuries and lack of care. The petitioner moved for a protective order to vacate interrogatories served by the respondents, arguing against the applicability of disclosure provisions in neglect cases under the Family Court Act. The court, citing CPLR provisions via Family Court Act section 165, denied the petitioner's motion to vacate, asserting its power to apply disclosure to ensure respondents are adequately informed of charges. However, the court found the interrogatories too broad and issued a protective order, modifying them to a limited scope, with a deadline for service.

Neglect proceedingChild abuseProtective orderInterrogatoriesDisclosureFamily Court ActCPLRProcedural lawDiscoveryChild welfare
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01835 [215 AD3d 414]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2023

Bankers Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Wilmington Trust, N.A.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York, which denied the defendant's motion to compel documents and serve additional interrogatories. The court found that Indiana's insurance examination privilege protected internal communications sought by the defendant. Additionally, Indiana's professional services privilege was deemed applicable to Washington National as a client, with no waiver despite the production of some nonprivileged communications. The defendant was also not entitled to confidential settlement agreements or pleadings from other cases due to a judge's protective order, and the request for monetary amounts was considered premature. Finally, the denial of additional interrogatories was upheld as overbroad, seeking confidential information, and rendered superfluous by the plaintiffs' damages expert report.

PrivilegeInsurance Examination PrivilegeDiscoveryMotion to CompelIndiana LawProfessional Services PrivilegeConfidentialitySettlement AgreementsInterrogatoriesAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Morua

This case, Morua v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, addresses whether supplemental interrogatory answers must be verified under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Francisco Morua sued State Farm for workers' compensation benefits. State Farm's unverified supplemental responses identified an expert, Jeffrey C. Siegel, whose testimony Morua objected to at trial. The Texas Supreme Court resolved conflicting appellate court decisions, ruling that supplemental interrogatory answers must indeed be verified. However, the Court found Morua waived his objection due to a thirteen-month delay in raising it. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

DiscoveryInterrogatoriesVerificationExpert Witness TestimonyWaiverTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate Court ConflictWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTimeliness of ObjectionTrial Procedure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donovan v. Central Baptist Church, Victoria

The United States Secretary of Labor initiated legal action against Central Baptist Church, operating Central Day Care Center, to prevent violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act concerning minimum wages and overtime. The Defendant sought a protective order to avoid answering interrogatories, arguing that compliance would infringe upon its First Amendment religious freedoms, asserting the day care is integral to its ministry. The Court denied the motion, stating that compelling responses to interrogatories regarding employee roles and compensation does not itself violate the First Amendment. This information is deemed crucial for the Court to adequately assess the constitutional claims on their merits at a later stage, distinguishing the discovery process from potential ultimate enforcement actions.

Fair Labor Standards ActFirst AmendmentReligious FreedomDay Care CenterMinimum WageOvertime CompensationDiscovery MotionProtective OrderChurch EmployeesConstitutional Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fire Insurance Co. v. Pettyjohn

United States Fire Insurance Company appealed a judgment awarding workers' compensation benefits to Bobby R. Pettyjohn. U.S. Fire raised several points of error, including the trial court's disregard of jury findings regarding Pettyjohn's election of remedies, the granting of leave to supplement interrogatories, and allowing certain witness testimonies. Pettyjohn filed a cross-point concerning the calculation of accrued benefits. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no evidence that Pettyjohn made an informed election when accepting health benefits, good cause for supplementing interrogatories, and no reversible error in witness testimony or voir dire. The court also overruled Pettyjohn's cross-point, noting he induced any error in the benefits payment calculation.

Workers' CompensationElection of RemediesHealth Insurance BenefitsAppellate ProcedureInterrogatoriesWitness TestimonyVoir DireAccrued BenefitsInformed ChoiceJury Findings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Phillips v. Vinson Supply Co.

Jimmy Burton Phillips sued Vinson Supply Company for discrimination after filing for worker's compensation, seeking damages for mental pain, lost wages, and future earnings. The trial court dismissed his suit with prejudice due to his failure to itemize damages as specially excepted to by the defendant, and for improperly complying with interrogatory answers. The appellate court found it was error to sustain the special exception requiring itemization of specific damage elements under Rule 47, Tex.R.Civ.P. The court also held that dismissal with prejudice for failure to answer interrogatories was unauthorized, construing 'dismissal' as without prejudice. Furthermore, the trial judge abused discretion by dismissing without notice of deficiencies or an opportunity to correct them, thus reversing and remanding the case to the trial court.

Worker's Compensation DiscriminationDismissal with PrejudiceSpecial ExceptionsInterrogatoriesDiscovery SanctionsDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 47Rule 56
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 50 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational