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

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. ADJ9154979; ADJ9318850; ADJ9318848; ADJ9532548
Regular
Aug 06, 2018

MARIA DEL CARMEN LOPEZ ANAYA vs. RAMONA’S FOOD GROUP, (PSI), CALIFORNIA CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CO OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ramona's Food Group's petition for removal of an order compelling it to serve all documents to a lien claimant. The Board found that Ramona's Food Group failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which are required for removal. The WCJ's report, incorporated by the Board, also noted the petition's procedural deficiencies, including lack of service on all parties. Consequently, the order compelling the service of documents remains in effect.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling Service of RecordWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLien ClaimantCompromise and ReleaseAOE/COESubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmZA Management
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraternal Order of Police, National Labor Council, USPS No. 2 v. United States Postal Service

The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and 13 individual Postal Police Officers sued the United States Postal Service and its employees, alleging violations of federal and state law, as well as their employment contract. Plaintiffs challenged restrictions on their law enforcement authority, citing 40 U.S.C. § 318, and also claimed illegal locker searches under the Fourth Amendment and New York law. The defendants sought dismissal, primarily arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the claims. It ruled that Section 318 does not confer a private right of action and that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the grievance procedures outlined in their collective bargaining agreement and the Postal Reorganization Act for their search and contract-related claims.

Labor LawPostal ServicePolice PowersFourth AmendmentLocker SearchCollective Bargaining AgreementExhaustion of RemediesPrivate Right of ActionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to Dismiss
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Commissioner of Social Services

The Commissioner of the Erie County Department of Social Services appealed an order by Family Court Judge John J. Honan. Judge Honan's order required the Commissioner to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and relieved of child protection responsibility, following an incident where a child in their custody was briefly abducted by her mother. The Commissioner's motion to vacate this show cause order was denied by the Family Court. On appeal, the higher court unanimously reversed the denial, finding no evidence of contempt against the Commissioner. The appellate court also clarified that Family Court lacks the authority to divest the Department of Social Services of its statutory responsibilities for child protection under the Social Services Law.

Child ProtectionSocial Services LawContempt of CourtShow Cause OrderJudicial AuthorityFamily Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewChild AbductionFoster CareStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1994

Juman v. Louise Wise Services

This case involves an appeal concerning an order that granted plaintiffs' motion to compel disclosure from a defendant adoption agency. The plaintiffs, adoptive parents, sued the agency for alleged fraud and misrepresentation during their son's 1966 adoption, claiming the agency withheld crucial psychiatric, psychological, and medical history of the natural mother. The IAS Court determined the complaint established a 'wrongful adoption' cause of action, a novel tort in New York, and ordered the agency to provide records and interrogatory answers for an in camera inspection. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, finding the lower court properly exercised its discretion in overseeing discovery to safeguard natural parents and in compelling disclosure under Social Services Law § 373-a and Domestic Relations Law § 114, given the adopted son's extensive history of psychological disorders.

Wrongful adoption tortAdoption fraudDisclosure of birth parent historyIn camera reviewDiscovery compulsionPsychiatric historyChild mental healthSocial Services LawDomestic Relations LawCPLR 4508 (a)
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruhlmann v. Ulster County Department of Social Services

Robert R. Ruhlmann sued Ulster County Department of Social Services and other county and hospital defendants, alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the ADA, and state laws, primarily for false arrest, imprisonment, and perceived disability discrimination. During discovery, hospital defendants sought Ruhlmann's medical and psychiatric records, which he objected to on privilege grounds. A Magistrate Judge ordered their production. Ruhlmann appealed this order. The District Court, presided over by Judge Hurd, granted Ruhlmann's appeal, finding that Ruhlmann had not waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege by alleging a perceived-disability ADA claim or by seeking "garden-variety" emotional distress damages. The Magistrate Judge's order compelling production was vacated.

Psychotherapist-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeAmericans with Disabilities ActPerceived DisabilityEmotional Distress DamagesDiscovery DisputeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 72(a)False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentFourth Amendment
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. Putnam Valley Board of Education

This case concerns a discovery dispute in a discrimination complaint filed against the Putnam Valley Board of Education by several plaintiffs, including T.H., alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and civil rights statutes. The core issue was whether the identity of a mandated reporter, who made a Child Protective Services (CPS) report about T.H., should be disclosed to the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed a Magistrate Judge's order compelling disclosure, asserting that New York Social Services Law mandates the confidentiality of such reporters. The District Court, balancing the state's strong interest in protecting mandated reporters to encourage child abuse reporting against the plaintiffs' need for discovery, reversed the prior order. Consequently, the court granted a protective order, prohibiting the disclosure of the reporter's identity, citing the potential chilling effect on future reporting and the plaintiffs' minimal likelihood of overcoming the reporter's immunity under state law.

Discovery DisputeProtective OrderChild Protective ServicesMandated Reporter ConfidentialityNew York Social Services LawFederal Civil RightsDiscrimination AllegationChild Abuse ReportImmunityGood Faith
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGinn v. Morrin

This order addresses the defendants' motion to vacate and set aside the service of various legal documents, including an order to show cause, affidavit, summons, and verified complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion. The decision included an award of twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. Defendants were also granted leave to answer within twenty days after the service of the order, contingent upon the payment of the aforementioned costs.

Motion to VacateService of ProcessOrder to Show CauseVerified ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsAffirmation of OrderLeave to Answer
References
2
Case No. LBO 0297361
Regular
Nov 28, 2007

ANTHONY TENNISON vs. NATIONAL PLANT SERVICES, CIGA by its servicing representative, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, for Reliance Insurance, in liquidation

The Appeals Board dismissed petitions for reconsideration and removal challenging an order compelling the applicant's wife to attend a continued deposition. The pro se petition was dismissed as untimely and unverified, while the attorney's petition was dismissed because discovery orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order, finding the wife waived her marital privilege by appearing and testifying, and cautioned parties about potential sanctions for their behavior.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaldepositionmarital privilegechild care reimbursementdiscovery orderinterlocutory orderfinal orderuntimely petition
References
12
Case No. ADJ3196685 (PAS 0043967) MF ADJ2175299 (PAS 0043966)
Regular
Jul 20, 2015

ALICIA SZUMAN vs. JAY NOLAN COMMUNITY SERVICES, HIH INSURANCE, in liquidation/CIGA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES-IN HOME SUPPORT SERVICES, YORK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision in the case of Alicia Szuman v. Jay Nolan Community Services et al. This grant was sought by the defendant to allow further study of the factual and legal issues. The WCAB has ordered that all future correspondence related to the petition for reconsideration must be filed directly with the Office of the Commissioners. This order is effective pending the issuance of a formal Decision After Reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration GrantedPetition for ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSTrial Level Documents
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 26,539 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