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

In re Handicapped Child

The Orchard Park Central School District (District) sought a court-ordered subpoena for psychiatric and psychological records of an infant student from the Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center. The District intended to use these records in an appeal initiated by the student's parents concerning the child's handicapping condition. The parents cross-moved to quash the subpoena, asserting the records were privileged and their consent for release had been withdrawn. Justice Thomas P. Flaherty ruled that no legislative exception existed to abrogate the physician-patient and psychologist-client privileges in this context, especially over parental objection. Consequently, the court denied the District's motion for the subpoena and granted the parents' cross-motion to quash, underscoring the protection of confidential communications in a child's best interests.

Education LawStudent RecordsPsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashParental RightsCommittee on HandicappedFair Hearing
References
17
Case No. 24-110050
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

People v. S.

The defendant, S., faced charges of forcible touching and endangering the welfare of a child. The defense's motion to dismiss the case was rooted in claims of Speedy Trial violations, constitutional concerns regarding access to confidential psychiatric records, and arguments in the interest of justice. Specifically, the defense challenged the People's Certificate of Compliance, alleging non-disclosure of the complainant's psychiatric records from RCPC and other police/CPS records. The Justice Court denied the defendant's motion in its entirety, ruling that the complainant's psychiatric and CPS records are not discoverable under CPL Art. 245 in this non-court-of-record venue, and upholding the validity of the People's speedy trial declaration. The court further declined to dismiss the case on constitutional grounds or in the interest of justice.

Criminal ProcedureMental Hygiene LawJudiciary LawSpeedy TrialDiscovery ObligationsConfidentialityPsychiatric RecordsCourts of RecordJustice CourtSubpoena Duces Tecum
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re K.M.

The New York County District Attorney's Office (DA) filed an ex parte application for a subpoena duces tecum seeking K.M.'s psychiatric records and access to treating hospital staff. K.M. was committed to the Commissioner of Mental Health after pleading not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect. The court granted the DA's request for K.M.'s psychiatric records but denied the request to interview treating psychiatrists and psychologists, citing psychotherapist-patient privilege. The court found that the interests of justice did not significantly outweigh K.M.'s right to confidentiality, suggesting that the DA could interview a member of Kirby's Psychiatric Committee instead.

Mental HealthPsychiatric RecordsSubpoena Duces TecumPsychotherapist-Patient PrivilegeConfidentialityCPL 330.20Dangerous Mental ConditionWaiver of PrivilegeNew York LawCriminal Procedure Law
References
4
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. ADJ3817836 (SJO 0250881)
Regular
May 31, 2012

ZUFAN A. REDA vs. FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case concerns applicant Zufan A. Reda's claim for permanent total disability due to a psychiatric injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is ordering the development of the record because neither the applicant's QME, Dr. Sidle, nor the defendant's QME, Dr. Keins, provided substantial evidence regarding the apportionment of psychiatric permanent disability. The WCAB found that Dr. Sidle's report incorrectly addressed causation of injury rather than apportionment of disability, and Dr. Keins' report was rejected as non-substantial due to prior rulings on industrial causation. Therefore, the WCAB has appointed Dr. Roy Curry as a "regular physician" to conduct a new evaluation on the issue of psychiatric permanent disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationDevelopment of RecordLabor Code section 5701Industrial InjuryPsychiatric InjuryCompensable ConsequenceSection 5803Section 5804Section 5410Permanent Total Disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Stanton

Plaintiff Glen Smith, an inmate appearing pro se, sued the State of New York, Probation Officer Bruce W. Stanton, Probation Supervisor Thomas J. Bruner, and Chemung County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Smith alleged that his constitutional rights were violated by the unauthorized inclusion of confidential psychiatric records in his presentence report (PSR), leading to access by numerous state and county employees. He sought injunctive relief and damages. The court granted the State's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and also granted the Chemung defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that the disclosure of psychiatric records in the PSR was legitimate for penological interests and that individual defendants were entitled to absolute immunity, thus dismissing the complaint in its entirety.

Constitutional RightsPresentence ReportConfidentialityPsychiatric RecordsEleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityQualified ImmunityInmate RightsPrivacy RightsSummary Judgment
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Canal

The defendants in the Love Canal litigation sought to discover and copy confidential health records from the New York State Department of Health concerning the 1,500 plaintiffs. These records included questionnaires, hospital records, blood tests, and medical examinations, gathered by the Department of Health during its investigation into health complaints in the Love Canal area, with promises of confidentiality to residents. The defendants argued that by commencing litigation, the plaintiffs waived their confidentiality rights. The State, however, opposed the motion citing the Public Health Law's confidentiality provision, emphasizing the public policy of protecting privacy and fostering trust for health data collection. The court denied the defendants' request for records held by the State, finding no waiver of privilege for State-conducted studies. However, the court affirmed the defendants' right to seek medical records directly from the plaintiffs through proper discovery procedures, such as CPLR 3121, provided the defendants demonstrate the plaintiffs' medical condition is in controversy.

Discovery ProceedingsConfidentiality PrivilegePublic Health LawPhysician-Patient PrivilegeMedical RecordsToxic TortEnvironmental LitigationWaiver of PrivilegeCPLRNiagara County
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24320
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2024

D.P. v. S.P.

This case involves a custody dispute between D.P. (Plaintiff) and S.P. (Defendant) concerning their two minor children in Westchester County, New York. The defendant sought to compel the plaintiff to release psychotherapy notes and medical records from her former and current mental health professionals (Dr. O.K. and Dr. A.L.). The defendant argued these records were essential for trial preparation, alleging the plaintiff had a personality disorder and received in-patient psychiatric treatment. The plaintiff and the treating professionals' counsel opposed, asserting confidentiality and that substantial medical records had already been disclosed to a court-appointed forensic evaluator. The court affirmed that psychotherapy notes can be discoverable in custody cases but ruled that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the specific information sought was not already available from the extensive records previously provided. Consequently, the defendant's motion for disclosure was denied, and the plaintiff's cross-motion to deny the disclosure was granted.

Custody DisputeChild WelfarePsychotherapy Notes DisclosureMental Health RecordsParental FitnessConfidentiality WaiverProtective OrderIn Camera ReviewBest Interests of the ChildForensic Evaluation
References
15
Case No. 03-04-00744-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2006

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. North East Independent School District and Dr. Richard A. Middleton, in His Official Capacity as Custodian of Public Records for North East Independent School District

This case addresses whether a memorandum from a school principal to a teacher, which outlines complaints and directs corrective actions, qualifies as a confidential "document evaluating the performance of a teacher" under Texas Education Code Ann. § 21.355. The Attorney General argued it was merely a reprimand and therefore not confidential, while the North East Independent School District (NEISD) contended it was an evaluation. The district court sided with NEISD, granting their motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, concluding that the memorandum's content, including the principal's judgment on performance issues, corrective directives, and provisions for further review, indeed constituted an evaluation, thereby making it confidential and exempt from public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.

Public Information ActTeacher Performance EvaluationConfidentialitySchool District RecordsSummary Judgment ReviewStatutory InterpretationGovernment TransparencyEducation CodeAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 5,782 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