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. ADJ12349952
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

Dinh Tran vs. UL, LLC; Federal Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted in part a petition for removal filed by Dinh Tran, who sought to prevent the discovery of raw testing data from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to privacy concerns. While affirming the underlying Findings and Orders on its merits, the Board intervened to correct a clerical error and amend the orders regarding the confidentiality of medical records. The amended order strictly limits the reproduction and disclosure of raw testing materials and data, requiring their destruction after litigation and mandating defense counsel to ensure confidentiality and report any violations, thereby safeguarding the applicant's privacy rights.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorRaw Testing DataRight to PrivacyClerical ErrorsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWaiver of PrivilegeNarrowly Circumscribed DisclosureConfidentiality
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

This is a purported class action brought by Kelley Cunningham and Tam-mye Cunningham against Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. EDS moved for summary judgment, asserting the "Air Carrier Exemption" to the FLSA, arguing plaintiffs worked under the direction of American Airlines. The court denied this motion, stating that the "control prong" of the National Mediation Board test focuses on the relationship between the air carrier and the employer (EDS), not just the individual employees, and found genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court granted EDS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding FLSA's record-keeping requirements, as there is no private right of action for employees to enforce these provisions. Defendant may renew the motion for summary judgment with further evidence.

FLSA ExemptionsAir Carrier ExemptionRailway Labor Act CoverageOvertime Pay DisputeClass Action LawsuitSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNMB Control-Function TestTelecommunications Industry
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2013

Deacy v. Port Authority

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, issued an order on September 10, 2013, which partially granted the defendants' motion to compel nonparty Iron Workers Locals 40, 361, & 417 Union Security Funds (Security) to comply with a subpoena duces tecum. This subpoena requested raw data for actuarial reports. Concurrently, Security's cross-motion to quash the subpoena and for a protective order was denied. The Appellate Court unanimously affirmed this decision, finding that the raw data sought by defendants, which includes information on fund participants to assess plaintiffs' potential lost income, is discoverable. Defendants also agreed to redact personal identifying information and cover the costs associated with document production.

Subpoena Duces TecumDiscoveryActuarial ReportsRaw DataUnion Security FundsMotion to CompelMotion to QuashProtective OrderAppellate AffirmationBronx County
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2008

New York Committee for Occupational Safety & Health v. Bloomberg

Petitioner NYCOSH requested workers' compensation records from the New York City Mayor's office and Law Department via a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, seeking raw data on workplace injuries as mandated by Administrative Code § 12-127. Both agencies denied the request, providing only an annual report and claiming the raw data was not maintained in a single responsive record and would be burdensome to produce. NYCOSH initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court dismissed. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the Supreme Court applied an incorrect standard of review. It further found the City's claim of statutory exemption under Workers' Compensation Law § 110-a invalid but noted the personal privacy exemption under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b), requiring redaction. The court ordered a hearing to determine if retrieving electronic records constituted 'simple manipulation' or new record creation, and if producing hard copies would impose an undue burden, thereby reinstating the petition in part.

Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)Public RecordsWorkers' Compensation RecordsData PrivacyUndue BurdenElectronic Records DisclosureGovernment TransparencyCPLR Article 78 ProceedingNew York Appellate DivisionAgency Records
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donegan v. Nadell

Petitioner Donegan, employed in Nassau courts since 1967, was promoted to Court Assistant II and began performing data entry duties following the installation of a computer system in 1973. However, the job specifications for her title did not include computer skills. When a new statewide classification plan was implemented, her position was converted to Principal Office Assistant, a title also lacking data entry duties. Donegan challenged this classification, arguing her actual duties warranted a classification as Data Entry Supervisor. Despite her grievance being partially granted and a provisional appointment to the data entry supervisor role, she was ineligible for permanent appointment due to not taking the required competitive examination. The court affirmed the administrative decision, emphasizing that civil service classifications must be based on "in-title" duties defined by job specifications, not "out-of-title" work performed, and that data entry skills required distinct competitive testing.

Civil Service LawJob ClassificationOut-of-Title WorkData Entry SupervisorPrincipal Office AssistantCourt AssistantPromotional ExaminationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
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

Accardi v. Control Data Corp.

This case, a Memorandum and Order by District Judge Whitman Knapp, addresses an ERISA action where plaintiffs sought severance pay from their former employer, Control Data Corporation (CDC), following the sale of their division to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP). Plaintiffs, initially employees of an IBM subsidiary, had their benefits, including severance pay, protected by a "Benefits Agreement" adopted by CDC upon acquisition. CDC denied severance, arguing the IBM plan didn't cover divestitures and citing its own policy. The court, applying an "arbitrary and capricious" standard, found CDC's interpretation of the IBM benefits plan, which it had adopted, to be clearly erroneous. The court concluded that the IBM plan indeed provided for severance in cases of dismissals due to division sales and did not require unemployment or prohibit "double recovery." Consequently, the court denied CDC's motion for summary judgment and granted it to the plaintiffs.

ERISASeverance PayEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationsCorporate DivestitureAcquisitionBenefit Plan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious StandardControl Data Corporation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 572 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