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
Sep 24, 2014

Burbar v. Incorporated Village of Garden City

Plaintiff Jacob Burbar filed a motion to compel discovery against the County of Nassau and the Nassau County District Attorney's office in a case alleging wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. The defendants invoked deliberative process and work product privileges to withhold certain documents. United States Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson conducted an *in camera* review. The Court determined that the deliberative process privilege was inapplicable because the defendants' intent and decision-making process were central to the plaintiff's claims. Regarding the work product privilege, the Court ordered disclosure of fact work product while protecting opinion work product. Consequently, the motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part, with specific instructions for document production.

DiscoveryPrivilegeDeliberative ProcessWork ProductMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of ProcessCivil RightsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3)In Camera ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1975

Flynn v. Mario & Di Bono Plastering Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 8, 1975, denying the third-party defendant’s motion for an order of preclusion or to compel plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff to provide certain particulars. The underlying case involves a wrongful death claim by plaintiffs, whose testate iron worker allegedly died from lung cancer due to asbestos exposure at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged negligence against the manufacturer and supplier of the asbestos product for failing to comply with statutes, rules, and regulations. The third-party plaintiff, in turn, charged the appellant (third-party defendant) with similar violations. The appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, directing the plaintiffs-respondents and third-party plaintiff-respondent to furnish a further bill of particulars. The decision highlighted the requirement in tort actions to specifically identify any statutory violations asserted.

asbestos exposurewrongful deathlung cancerstatutory violationbill of particularsnegligencethird-party claimappellate reviewmotion to precludecause of action
References
1
Case No. ADJ423557 (ANA 0341897)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

BARTOLLO TERRONES vs. REMEDY TEMP, RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY, U.S. TILE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Select Staffing's petition for removal, upholding a WCJ's order compelling depositions and document production. Select argued the WCJ lacked jurisdiction over its non-party witnesses and demanded confidential financial documents. The WCAB found Labor Code Section 5710 allows compelling depositions of non-party witnesses, and the WCJ has jurisdiction to order production of the purchase agreement, with claims of privilege to be adjudicated later. No substantial prejudice to Select was found to warrant disturbing the WCJ's order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDeposition of WitnessesMotion to Compel AttendanceNotice to ProduceStaffing AgencyGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Labor Code Section 5710
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Rycoline Products, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order from December 20, 1996, which denied the defendant-appellant's motion to reject a Special Referee’s report and for a protective order, confirming the report and directing the production of certain records. Additionally, the court modified an order from February 28, 1997, to grant the defendant-appellant 45 days to comply with the directive, specifically for the production of redacted employee worker compensation records. The court found that the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the Referee’s report.

Discovery DisputeProtective OrderSpecial RefereeWorkers' Compensation RecordsCompliance ExtensionJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewMotion DenialRecord Production
References
0
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. 88 Civ. 4475 (JMC)
Regular Panel Decision

Daval Steel Products v. M v. Juraj Dalmatinac

Plaintiff Daval Steel Products initiated an admiralty action against the vessel M.V. Ju-raj Dalmatinac and its owners/operators, Europe-Overseas Steamship Lines N.V. and S.P. Shipping Co., Ltd., seeking damages for alleged damage to steel products. Plaintiff moved to compel discovery or dismiss defendants' answer, while defendants cross-moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient service of process. The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the foreign corporations and that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for jurisdiction or justify further discovery on the matter. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery was denied as moot, and the complaint was dismissed against the defendants.

Personal JurisdictionService of ProcessAdmiralty LawMotion to DismissDiscovery DisputesForeign CorporationsTransfer of VenueRule 12(b)(2)Rule 12(b)(5)Rule 37(d)
References
12
Case No. ADJ6784736
Regular
May 24, 2010

CYNTHIA ARMANDO vs. ENDODONTIC ASSOCIATES CORP., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order compelling production of claims file documents. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the original order, and issued a new order. The new order requires the defendant to produce non-privileged portions of the claims file and witness statements, and to describe any privileged documents separately. The Board also clarified that statutory privilege provisions, including attorney work product, are applicable in workers' compensation proceedings.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationClaims Investigation FileAttorney Workproduct PrivilegeWitness StatementsInterim OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAbsolute Work ProductQualified Work Product
References
7
Case No. 02 Civ. 1243
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2003

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC

This opinion addresses a discovery dispute concerning the production of electronic data stored on backup tapes in a gender discrimination lawsuit brought by Laura Zubulake against UBS. Following a prior order for a sample restoration of emails, Zubulake sought to compel UBS to produce all remaining backup emails at UBS's expense. The court, applying a seven-factor test, ruled that both parties must share the costs of restoring and searching the inaccessible backup tapes. Specifically, UBS is ordered to bear 75% of these costs, while Zubulake is responsible for the remaining 25%. However, UBS must exclusively cover all other costs, including the review and production of the electronic data once it has been converted to an accessible format, emphasizing that only costs related to making inaccessible data accessible should be shifted.

e-discoverycost-shiftingelectronic databackup tapesemail productiongender discriminationdiscovery disputeproportionalityRule 26Rule 68
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Campbell & State of New York

Monica A. Campbell, a state employee, and her union, New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association (COPBA), entered into a disciplinary settlement agreement with her employer, the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH). This agreement established a one-year disciplinary evaluation period (DEP) during which Campbell could be terminated without recourse to arbitration if she committed misconduct. Following two incidents, OMH terminated Campbell's employment. Petitioners (Campbell and COPBA) sought to compel arbitration of the termination, arguing that the agreement did not explicitly exclude arbitration on the question of misconduct. Supreme Court ordered arbitration. Respondents (OMH) appealed, arguing the DEP constituted a probationary period where OMH had the right to make a threshold determination of misconduct without arbitration. The appellate court agreed with OMH, finding that the parties intended to exclude arbitration for the threshold determination of misconduct during the DEP, and that petitioners' sole remedy was judicial review under CPLR article 78. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order compelling arbitration was reversed, the petitioners' application denied, and the respondents' cross-application to stay arbitration was granted. The matter was remitted for consideration of petitioners' alternative CPLR article 78 request.

ArbitrationDisciplinary ActionEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic EmployeesProbationary PeriodMisconductJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Appellate Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ7936995
Regular
Dec 31, 2012

MARIA AVILA vs. RESIDENCE INN/MARRIOTT HOT SPRINGS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the challenged WCJ order compelling the production of claims records was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted removal on its own motion, rescinded the order, and returned the matter to the trial level. This action was taken because the defendant demonstrated significant prejudice and irreparable harm from discovery requests that were vague, overbroad, and potentially violated attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrines, failing to show good cause or materiality.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalPetition for ReconsiderationSubpoena Duces Tecum (SDT)Motion to QuashAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineOverbroad DiscoveryIrreparable HarmInterlocutory Order
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 24,689 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