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
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

Lynch v. Waterfront Commission

The president of the New York Shipping Association-International Longshoremen’s Association Medical Center of New York, Inc. moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. The movant argued that the commission lacked jurisdiction, the subpoena was overly broad, and it demanded privileged medical records. The commission initiated the investigation after the New York State Department of Insurance found discrepancies during an audit of the medical center’s welfare fund, specifically regarding a contract with T. C. Dental Laboratories, which was also implicated in irregularities in a New Jersey investigation. The court denied the motion, affirming the commission's jurisdiction under the Waterfront Commission Compact, stating that misuse of worker funds constitutes a 'waterfront practice' within its purview. The court also found the subpoena was not unduly broad, as it requested only corporate minutes relevant to the investigation, and confirmed that privileged medical records were not required.

Subpoena QuashWaterfront CommissionJudicial ReviewCorporate GovernanceFinancial AuditMedical FundDental ServicesLabor WelfareRegulatory JurisdictionCorrupt Practices
References
1
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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
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. 2025 NYSlipOp 07376
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2025

DeCastro v. Capone

Nonparty Michael Gillin appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied his motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum and for a protective order. The underlying case is a medical malpractice action initiated by Manuel DeCastro against David Capone and others, related to treatment at Stony Brook Southampton Hospital. Gillin, as Director of Information Services at the hospital, provided an affidavit regarding electronic medical records in a related Court of Claims action. The defendants then served a subpoena duces tecum on Gillin for emails related to his affidavit, which Gillin sought to quash, asserting attorney-client privilege with the Office of the Attorney General. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that Gillin failed to establish an attorney-client relationship, partly because his employment agreement with StaffCo of Brooklyn, LLC, stated he was not considered a SUNY employee for most purposes, thereby not establishing a relationship with the OAG representing SUNY.

Medical MalpracticeJudicial EstoppelAttorney-Client PrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumEmployer-Employee RelationshipProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Information ServicesElectronic Medical RecordsAffidavitCourt of Claims
References
6
Case No. ADJ7028178
Regular
Mar 18, 2013

LEOBARDO CHAVEZ vs. VAN ACKER CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) order quashing subpoenas duces tecum. The Board found the subpoenas overly broad, duplicative, and burdensome, requesting extensive records related to surveillance beyond what had already been provided. While acknowledging the applicant was not afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to the initial motion to quash, the Board determined no substantial prejudice occurred as the applicant could issue a more narrowly drawn subpoena. The denial ensures the applicant must refashion a reasonable request for surveillance records.

Petition for RemovalQuashed Subpoenas Duces TecumOverbroadDuplicativeBurdensomeSurveillance RecordsPrivileged DocumentsInvestigator's Field NotesOpportunity to be HeardSubstantial Prejudice
References
0
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