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

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

Eckman v. Cipolla

The plaintiff, Susan Eckman, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Anthony Cipolla, City of New York, New York City Fire Department, and Gerard J. Moriarty in a medical malpractice action. Eckman sought damages for the alleged wrongful death and pain and suffering of her late husband, James M. Manganaro III, who died by suicide, asserting that Cipolla failed to adequately monitor his psychotropic medication and Moriarty failed to perform a complete mental status assessment despite suicidal ideation. The defendants successfully demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, presenting expert affirmations, deposition testimony, and relevant medical records. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's expert affidavit was conclusory, speculative, and unsupported by the record, failing to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendants was affirmed.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathSuicideSummary JudgmentPsychotropic MedicationSocial Work MalpracticeExpert WitnessProximate CauseAppellate ReviewKings County
References
10
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. ADJ6552734
Regular
Apr 02, 2015

Diane Garibay-Jimenez vs. Santa Barbara Medical Foundation Clinic, Zurich American Insurance

This case concerns a denied request for left ulnar nerve decompression surgery. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) upheld the denial, finding the applicant failed to provide necessary Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) reports to the Independent Medical Review (IMR), making a further review unreasonable. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's order. The WCAB found the defendant failed to comply with Labor Code section 4610.5(l) by not providing all relevant medical records to IMR, thus invalidating the prior IMR determination. The matter was returned for a new IMR application, holding the defendant responsible for submitting complete records.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiane Garibay-JimenezSanta Barbara Medical Foundation ClinicZurich American InsuranceADJ6552734Opinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationExpedited Findings of Fact and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeIndependent Medical ReviewUtilization Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mejia v. Drake Group, LLC

Claimant sought workers' compensation for a back injury, which the employer disputed, alleging no employment or work-related accident. The employer's discovery that claimant used an alias for treatment led to requests for relevant medical records, which a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) repeatedly denied, ultimately establishing the claim. The Workers’ Compensation Board then denied the employer’s application to reopen the case for discovery, finding the additional records not probative. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the Board abused its discretion. The court emphasized the relevance of the withheld medical records to the issue of causation, citing conflicting existing medical reports and the employer's hindered ability to fully litigate the claim without complete disclosure.

Workers' CompensationMedical RecordsAliasAbuse of DiscretionReopening CaseDiscoveryCausationAppellate ReviewEvidenceBack Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rechenberger v. Nassau County Medical Center

Edward Rechenberger suffered hip fractures and underwent two operations at Nassau County Medical Center in May 1982. Following a re-injury and later diagnosis, he learned the surgical hardware was improperly implanted, leading to further operations. Mr. Rechenberger sought leave to serve a late notice of claim against the medical center. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the hospital had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the statutory 90-day period through its own medical records. The court concluded that the delay in serving the notice of claim was not substantially prejudicial to the hospital, and thus, granted the petitioners leave to serve the late notice of claim.

Medical MalpracticeLate Notice of ClaimNassau CountyHip FractureSurgical ErrorContinuous Treatment DoctrineActual NoticePrejudiceAppellate ReviewMunicipal Corporation
References
11
Case No. ADJ4423159 (SAL 0118926)
Regular
Sep 20, 2016

ISIDRO CERVANTES vs. QUALITY FARMS LABOR, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal to review an administrative law judge's order precluding applicant from submitting non-medical records to the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Board determined that certain medical study abstracts and specific AMA Guides pages were relevant and permissible for submission to the QME, particularly concerning the disputed application of the Combined Values Chart. However, other submitted non-medical documents, such as panel decisions and index pages for abstracts, were deemed not sufficiently relevant or their authenticity was unclear, thus their submission was not permitted. Ultimately, the Board amended the original order to allow the applicant to provide only the specifically identified relevant medical abstracts and AMA Guides pages to the QME.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorNon-medical recordsMedical study abstractsAMA GuidesCombined Values ChartLabor Code section 4062.3PrejudiceIrreparable harm
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2005

Roberts v. El-Hajal

Plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit, alleging that defendant Marlene El-Hajal negligently failed to diagnose a rare seizure disorder in her infant son. The complaint also sought to hold defendant E.J. Noble Hospital vicariously liable for El-Hajal's actions. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the hospital, concluding that El-Hajal was an independent contractor and the hospital lacked legal authority to supervise her medical practice. Plaintiff appealed this decision, additionally asserting that a hospital-employed nurse, Joy Markwick, was negligent for not recording and reporting telephone calls. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding no evidence of an employer-employee relationship between the hospital and El-Hajal during the relevant period, and dismissing the claims against the nurse due to insufficient evidence.

Medical MalpracticeVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentHospital LiabilityPhysician NegligenceNurse NegligenceSeizure DisorderEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dibble v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

The Supreme Court order was unanimously modified on appeal. The modification involved deleting the provision that granted the third-party defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to provide authorization for all of the plaintiff's workers' compensation records and medical records. The court reasoned that CPLR 3102 [a] does not contain any provision allowing a third-party defendant to obtain such authorization from the plaintiff. The order, as modified, was affirmed without costs.

Discovery DisputeWorkers' Compensation RecordsMedical Records DisclosureMotion to CompelCPLR 3102 [a]Appellate Court RulingPlaintiff RightsThird-Party Defendant ActionErie County Supreme CourtOrder Modification
References
2
Case No. Index No. 524963/19
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Pillco v. 160 Dikeman St., LLC

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying plaintiff Fabian Pillco's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1) in a personal injury action. The core issue was the admissibility of the plaintiff's medical record statement describing the accident, which differed from his deposition testimony. The court held that the statement, recorded by Dr. Daniel Khaimov at Precision Pain, was germane to diagnosis and treatment, thus admissible under the business records exception. This created a triable issue of fact regarding the accident's occurrence, despite the plaintiff being the sole witness. The decision provides guidance on the admissibility of patient statements within medical records when relevant to medical care.

Hearsay RuleBusiness Records ExceptionMedical Records AdmissibilityLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentCredibilityPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFalling Object
References
70
Showing 1-10 of 11,307 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