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 21, 2015

Tuzzolino v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.

In July 2013, the plaintiff was injured in a fall at the defendant's plant, sustaining a wrist fracture, and injuries to the lower back, right leg, and foot. He underwent a lumbar laminectomy in April 2014 and sought treatment from various healthcare providers, including a spinal surgeon. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action alleging Labor Law violations. The defendant served subpoenas on the plaintiff's nonparty treating healthcare providers, claiming the testimony was unavailable through other sources. The plaintiff moved to quash these subpoenas and sought a protective order. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the defendant failed to demonstrate the testimony sought was unrelated to diagnosis and treatment or that it was the only means of obtaining the information. The court emphasized that the treating providers' records were accessible for review by the defendant's experts.

SubpoenasProtective OrderMedical RecordsTreating PhysiciansDepositionsDiscoveryAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySpinal Surgery
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2014

In re Maria S.

This case concerns a motion filed by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) to quash a subpoena from respondent Ramon R., seeking records from a 2007 investigation into his household, which was previously deemed unfounded. Ramon R. is currently facing allegations of sexual offenses against Maria S. in a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding. The court determined that the 2007 investigative materials are relevant to the current allegations, especially regarding Maria S.’s interactions with Ramon R. Despite Social Services Law § 422(5)(a) mandating the sealing of unfounded reports, the court ruled that other investigative documents are not subject to this sealing provision. Consequently, the motion to quash was granted in part and denied in part, ordering ACS to release all documents from the 2007 investigation, excluding the oral report transmittal, after an in camera review.

SubpoenaChild Protective ServicesFamily LawRecord DisclosureConfidentialityUnfounded ReportsIn Camera ReviewSocial Services LawFamily Court ActChild Abuse Allegations
References
2
Case No. ADJ7039298
Regular
Jul 08, 2010

GARY HILTABIDEL vs. WESTERN STAR TRANSPORT, DELOS INSURANCE administered by AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATOR (FRESNO), 02HR STAFF LEASING, PROVIDENCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought reconsideration of an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum for personnel and employment records from a co-defendant. The WCAB found the subpoena quashing order was not a final order, thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which is required for a petition for removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Quashing Subpoena Duces TecumCCP Section 1987.1Employee Leasing AgreementStaff LeasingDiscoverable DocumentsFinal OrderSubstantive Rights
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

The Grand Jury of New York County issued subpoenas duces tecum to the law firm of John Doe, P. C., seeking various records. John Doe, P. C. moved to quash or modify these subpoenas, asserting attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. After an in camera review of 109 files, the court denied the attorney-client privilege claim for two files due to insufficient proof of confidentiality. For the work product privilege, the court applied the crime-fraud exception for specific subpoenaed records, citing an ongoing investigation into corruption in personal injury litigation. The court also narrowly construed the work product privilege. Consequently, the motion was granted for eight specific files found to contain protected attorney work product, while denied for the remaining files. The records not protected by privilege were ordered to be delivered to the District Attorney by August 18, 1988, following service of the decision on August 16, 1988.

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1978

People ex rel. Hickox v. Hickox

In a child custody proceeding, the petitioner father sought the respondent mother's psychiatric records from Payne-Whitney Psychiatric Clinic via a subpoena duces tecum. Special Term granted the motion to quash the subpoena. On appeal, the order was reversed, and the motion to quash was denied. The appellate court clarified that a subpoena does not equate to an order of disclosure and directed that the Special Term Justice must first examine the records to determine their relevance, whether the physician-patient privilege (CPLR 4504) has been waived, and the necessity of disclosure for the custody determination, prioritizing the child's welfare while guarding against unnecessary revelation of confidential information. The court emphasized a cautious approach to disclosure, especially in light of the potential 'chilling effect' on parents seeking psychiatric help.

Child CustodySubpoena Duces TecumPsychiatric RecordsPhysician-Patient PrivilegeConfidentialityWaiver of PrivilegeDisclosure LimitationsAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionWelfare of the Child
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russo v. Hardy

The Monroe County Department of Social Services, as petitioner in a paternity case against 'X' concerning a child born to 'Y', filed a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum. The subpoena sought records related to assistance given to 'Y' and her statements about the child's parentage. The Department argued confidentiality under Social Services Law and CPLR. The court, presided by Judge Joseph T. Pilato, denied the motion, ruling that such records are not uniformly confidential and that special circumstances exist, especially given the infant's rights and the necessity of all available evidence for a paternity determination. The court ordered disclosure of relevant records to the respondent, limited to conversations between the petitioner and the caseworker.

paternity casesubpoena duces tecumconfidentialitysocial services recordsspecial circumstancesfiliation proceedingdisclosureinfant's rightsFamily CourtCPLR
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Stephen F.

In a neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, the Beth Israel Medical Center moved to quash a subpoena for records of the respondents, citing confidentiality protections under 21 U.S. Code § 1175 for drug abuse prevention records. The court weighed the public interest in child protection against patient confidentiality. It granted the motion to quash concerning the father's records, noting no allegation of neglect due to his drug use. For the mother's records, the court found the existing evidence of her prior drug use (admissions to a caseworker, grandmothe, and a prior Family Court finding) would make the subpoenaed records merely cumulative, thus not meeting the 'good cause' standard for immediate disclosure. However, the court reserved its final decision on quashing the subpoena for the mother's records, awaiting testimony from the doctor who diagnosed the child with 'failure to thrive' to determine if the records are relevant to the cause of the condition.

Neglect ProceedingChild ProtectionConfidentiality of RecordsDrug Abuse TreatmentSubpoenaFamily CourtMedical Records DisclosurePhysician-Patient PrivilegeGood Cause StandardCumulative Evidence
References
6
Case No. ADJ9268174
Regular
Jan 07, 2015

CHARLES BURNS vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of San Bernardino's petition for removal regarding a judge's order on subpoenas. The County sought to quash all subpoenas for records related to an inmate's claimed industrial injury, arguing the inmate was not an employee. The Board found the County failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order, even if the initial petition to quash was untimely. If the inmate is not an employee, the County will not be liable for costs related to the records or medical-legal expenses.

Subpoena Duces TecumPetition for RemovalOrder Quashing SubpoenaPenal Code Section 4017Labor Code Section 3370Inmate EmploymentRisk ManagementSan Bernardino Sheriff's DepartmentArrowhead Regional Medical CenterSubstantial Prejudice
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2004

Odfjell ASA v. Celanese AG

The Memorandum Order by District Judge Rakoff addresses motions related to arbitration subpoenas. The Court granted claimants Celanese and Millennium Petrochemicals' motion to enforce subpoenas against non-parties Stolt-Nielsen entities, requiring them to appear, testify, and produce documents before the arbitration panel. Concurrently, the Court denied Stolt-Nielsen's motion to quash a similar subpoena against Paul E. O’Brien and their subsequent motion to stay the Order. The decision clarifies that Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act grants arbitrators the power to compel non-parties to appear before them for testimony and document production, not limited to a final hearing. The Court emphasized that issues of privilege and confidentiality raised by Stolt-Nielsen should first be determined by the arbitration panel, demonstrating deference to arbitral processes.

Federal Arbitration ActArbitration SubpoenaNon-Party DiscoveryPre-Hearing DiscoveryMotion to QuashMotion to EnforceArbitrator PowersPrivilege IssuesConfidentialityJudicial Review
References
9
Case No. ADJ6979005
Regular
Mar 13, 2012

DOMINIQUE ALLEN vs. NORDSTROM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Nordstrom's petition for reconsideration because the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) order quashing most of Nordstrom's subpoenas duces tecum was not a final order. Nordstrom sought records to investigate an alleged psyche injury, but the ALJ found its requests overbroad and not sufficiently relevant. While the ALJ quashed most subpoenas, it allowed Nordstrom to reissue narrower requests focused on the admitted knee injury and alleged psyche injury. The WCAB found no abuse of discretion, noting that discovery should be balanced with applicant's privacy rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OpinionSubpoena Duces Tecum (SDT)OverbroadRelevanceDue ProcessDiscoveryPsychiatric ClaimPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 24,091 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