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

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. Siara Management, Inc.

Claimant, a custodian, sustained two work-related injuries in 2000, and his workers' compensation benefits were approved. In 2003, the employer's workers' compensation carrier requested an independent medical examination (IME) by Charles Totero. Claimant moved to preclude Totero's report, arguing it was improperly mailed by UMC Medical Consultants, EC., an IME services company, instead of Totero himself, in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 137. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied the motion, finding UMC, as Totero's direct employer and a registered IME company, was authorized to perform administrative services like mailing reports under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (e) (1). The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that the submission substantially complied with statutory requirements.

IME Report AdmissibilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 137Procedural ComplianceMedical Report MailingIME Services CompanyAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationIndependent Medical Examiner12 NYCRR 300.2
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2004

Claim of Stoudenmyre v. Loretto Rest Nursing Home

Claimant, a personal care aide, sustained a foot injury and her workers' compensation claim was established. Subsequently, an independent medical examination (IME) report was requested to address permanency. Claimant moved to preclude the IME report, arguing it was improperly mailed by Brookside Consultants, Inc., an IME services company, instead of the physician, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 137. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the motion, which the Board affirmed. This Court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that properly registered IME services companies are authorized to perform administrative functions like mailing reports, thereby substantially complying with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, as established in Matter of Clark v Siara Mgt., Inc.

IME reportmailing proceduresWorkers' Compensation Lawadministrative functionspermanency of injuryindependent medical examinationmedical reportsreport submissionappellate reviewBoard affirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giles v. Gi Yi

The dissenting opinion by Justice Whalen challenges the majority's interpretation of 22 NYCRR 202.17, which mandates personal injury plaintiffs to secure an expert witness report on causation and provide it to the defense prior to the defendant's medical examination of the plaintiff. Whalen argues this requirement is an undue burden and is not explicitly outlined within the regulation's scope. The dissent emphasizes that 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) only requires disclosure of reports from 'medical providers who have previously treated or examined the party seeking recovery,' distinct from expert reports generated solely for litigation purposes. Furthermore, Justice Whalen asserts that expert disclosure is governed by CPLR 3101 (d), which does not necessitate such early disclosure, and finds that the Supreme Court's decision to compel was an abuse of discretion, concluding that Nero v Kendrick was wrongly decided.

Expert Witness DisclosureCausationMedical ExaminationPersonal InjuryCivil Procedure Law and Rules (CPLR)Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court (22 NYCRR)Dissenting OpinionJudicial DiscretionPreclusionLitigation Expenses
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1967

Holloway v. Board of Examiners

The petitioner, a school social worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the respondent to provide copies of medical and other reports that led to an unsatisfactory rating in an examination for a Supervisor of School Social Workers license. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granting the petition to the extent of directing the respondent to furnish the reports to a physician designated by the petitioner, rather than directly to the petitioner. The case was remanded to the Special Term for further proceedings, including a determination on allowing the petitioner more time to appeal the unsatisfactory rating.

Article 78 CPLRLicense ExaminationSchool Social WorkerMedical ReportsDisclosureAdministrative AppealUnsatisfactory RatingAppellate ReversalRemandPhysician Disclosure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1994

People v. France

This is a combined decision addressing motions to vacate homicide convictions in six separate cases. The defendants argued that the prosecutor failed to disclose dictation audiotapes made by the New York City Medical Examiner, which they claimed constituted 'Rosario' material. The court denied the motions, ruling that the Medical Examiner's Office is an independent agency, and therefore, the audiotapes were not under the control of the District Attorney and not 'Rosario' material. The decision further clarifies that CPL article 240 provides for pretrial discovery of written reports but not dictation tapes, unless they contain exculpatory material. The court emphasized the Medical Examiner's role as an independent expert, distinct from 'event' or law enforcement witnesses, and concluded that their dictation tapes are not 'statements' within the 'Rosario' jurisprudence.

Rosario materialDiscovery rulesCPL 440.10 motionHomicide convictionMedical Examiner audiotapeAutopsy reportProsecutorial dutyDuplicative equivalentIndependent agencyCPL Article 240
References
31
Case No. SAL SJO 252436 (MF); SJO 246192
Regular
Jul 02, 2007

NIHAL HORDAGODA vs. State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves an employer's petition for reconsideration of an order authorizing medical treatment and admitting the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) reports. The employer argued the QME reports were inadmissible due to an alleged ex parte communication between the applicant and the QME, and that the awarded treatments were improper. The report recommends denying the petition, finding the communication was permissible under LC § 4062.3(h) and that the QME's opinions and awarded treatments for chronic pain were reasonable and not governed by ACOEM guidelines.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4062.3Ophthalmological evaluationFunctional capacity evaluationUtilization ReviewACOEM GuidelinesChronic spinal conditionTreating physician
References
0
Case No. ADJ3079482 (STK 0190821)
Regular
Apr 15, 2010

STEVEN JONES vs. BEN'S DRY WALL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a finding that the applicant sustained an industrial injury to his neck, arms, shoulders, and back. The defendant argued the claim was time-barred, challenged the admissibility of certain medical reports, and disputed the status of a medical examiner. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant's credible testimony and the qualified medical examiner's opinion supported the injury finding. Furthermore, the defendant waived statute of limitations arguments by failing to present supporting facts or law. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, including the admission of Dr. Lipton's report and the determination that Dr. Abeliuk was not an agreed medical examiner.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJindustrial injurycumulative traumastatute of limitationsLabor Code section 5405agreed medical examiner (AME)qualified medical examiner (QME)
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coratti v. Jon Josef Hair & Colour Group

The Workers' Compensation Board denied a claimant's motion to preclude a workers’ compensation carrier’s consultant report, which was based solely on a review of medical records, not an independent medical examination (IME). The claimant argued non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b), a provision requiring notice if an IME is performed. The Board concluded the statute does not apply to records-review-only reports. An appellate court affirmed, holding that the plain language of § 137 (1) (b) explicitly refers to practitioners who have performed or will perform an IME, thereby excluding those who solely review records. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to plain language, leaving policy arguments to the Legislature.

IME reportsrecords reviewWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationpreclusion motioncausationoccupational illnessdue processlegislative intent
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
Showing 1-10 of 12,392 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