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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaplin v. Pathmark Supermarkets

This case addresses a motion by defendants, including Supermarkets General Corp., for a protective order to vacate the plaintiff Mimi Chaplin's notice for discovery and inspection of accident reports. Mimi Chaplin sought these reports after sustaining personal injuries from a fall at the defendant's premises. The court, presided over by Justice James F. Niehoff, analyzed the newly enacted CPLR 3101 (g), which mandates full disclosure of accident reports prepared in the regular course of business. The court found that the accident report in question was prepared in Supermarkets General Corp.'s regular course of business, rendering it discoverable regardless of its potential use in litigation, thus denying the defendants' motion.

DiscoveryProtective OrderAccident ReportsCPLR 3101(g)Litigation PreparationRegular Course of BusinessPersonal InjuryNegligenceDisclosureEvidence
References
10
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. 348-162629-94
Regular Panel Decision

D.N.S. v. Schattman

Relator D.N.S., M.D. (Dr. S.) seeks mandamus relief against an order by the trial court compelling him to produce a narrative report to Michael Anderson, the real party in interest. Dr. S. prepared this report for his professional liability insurer after receiving a healthcare liability claim notice from Anderson, who had sued his employers for wrongful termination, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress related to a work injury and drug screen. Anderson later added Dr. S. as a defendant and requested the narrative report during discovery, which Dr. S. objected to based on attorney-client, party-communication, and investigative privileges. The trial court ordered the production, citing that the report was prepared in anticipation of trial and testimony, and formed the basis of Dr. S.'s mental impressions as an expert, ruling it discoverable under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166b(2)(e)(l). The appellate court disagreed, holding that the specific rule for tangible reports, 166b(2)(e)(2), should apply, and found no evidence that the report was prepared in anticipation of Dr. S.'s testimony as an expert, thus concluding the trial court abused its discretion. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally granted, requiring the trial court to vacate the order compelling production of the privileged narrative report.

MandamusDiscovery DisputePrivileged CommunicationAttorney-Client PrivilegeParty-Communication PrivilegeExpert Witness TestimonyHealthcare Liability ClaimWorkers' CompensationDrug ScreenAbuse of Discretion
References
12
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. 89-010923
Regular Panel Decision

Child World v. Solito

This original proceeding addresses a writ of mandamus filed by relators Child World and Cole National, who are co-defendants in an underlying personal injury lawsuit initiated by Mohammed Taravosh-Lahn. Taravosh-Lahn sued the relators after a slip and fall incident, and subsequently sought discovery of an "Other Liability Report" prepared by the relators' insurance carrier. The relators objected, claiming the report was privileged under Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b(3)(d) as it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. The respondent judge, Peter S. Solito, denied the motion for protection and ordered portions of the document to be produced. The appellate court, applying the two-prong Flores analysis, found that a formal settlement demand threatening suit within fifteen days constituted sufficient "outward manifestations" and a "good faith belief" that litigation was imminent, rendering the report privileged in its entirety. Therefore, the court concluded that Judge Solito abused his discretion by ordering the production of portions of the privileged report and conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing him to vacate his order.

MandamusDiscovery OrderPrivilegeAnticipation of LitigationTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureParty CommunicationsAbuse of DiscretionIn Camera InspectionInsurance CarrierClaims Report
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradford v. City of New York

This case addresses whether the medical report exchange rule, 22 NYCRR 202.17 (h), applies to medical reports not specifically prepared for litigation. The plaintiff, a postal carrier, sued the City of New York for head and neck injuries sustained when a lamppost fell on his truck. After a jury verdict in the plaintiff's favor, the defendant attempted to introduce expert medical testimony from a Postal Service medical officer without prior exchange of his report. The court excluded this testimony, emphasizing the rule's intent to prevent surprise and ensure fair trial preparation, and denied the defendant's motion to set aside the verdict.

Medical report exchange ruleRule 202.17 (h)Expert witness testimonyExclusion of evidencePersonal injuryNegligence liabilityJury verdictPost-concussion syndromeTreating physicianMedical officer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1995

Baruch v. Baruch

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order granting defendant Asnes's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint against her. Asnes, a certified clinical social worker, had prepared reports concerning an alleged sleeping disorder and potential sexual abuse of a child involved in a New Jersey divorce action. The court ruled that these reports were protected by a qualified privilege, even when published to the defendant's attorney in the divorce action. Plaintiffs failed to present evidence of constitutional or common-law malice that would be required to overcome this privilege. Additionally, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that Asnes breached any professional standard or duty of care in preparing or publishing the reports, which led to the proper dismissal of malpractice and negligence claims.

Summary judgmentQualified privilegeClinical social worker liabilityMalpractice claimsNegligence claimsChild custody disputeProfessional reports privilegeAbsence of maliceDuty of careAppellate affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Fourth Court of Appeals

Justice Gonzalez dissents from the majority decision, advocating for a clearer rule regarding when litigation commences in cases requiring agency determination. The case involves George Flores, who appealed an Industrial Accident Board (IAB) ruling on his workers' compensation claim against his employer, the City of San Antonio. Flores sought discovery of a 'Pre-Hearing Conference Preliminary Report' prepared by the City after his IAB claim filing. The trial court ordered its production, but the City successfully obtained a writ of mandamus from the court of appeals, arguing the report was privileged as prepared in anticipation of litigation. Justice Gonzalez argues that filing a claim with the IAB should constitute the commencement of litigation, thereby making the report privileged under Tex.R.Civ.P. 166b(3)(d), and thus the writ of mandamus should be denied.

Dissenting OpinionWorkers' CompensationPrivilegeDiscoveryAnticipation of LitigationIndustrial Accident BoardParty CommunicationsTrial CourtsMandamusTexas Rules of Civil Procedure
References
6
Case No. ADJ1456820
Regular
Oct 30, 2008

JEFFREY TERRA vs. FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION, ZURICH SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jeffrey Terra's petition for disqualification of the administrative law judge. The Board found the petition untimely filed and adopted the judge's report, which concluded that no bias or prejudice was demonstrated. The judge's actions, including ordering further testing for the applicant's claims, were consistent with her duties to prepare parties for trial.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPeremptory ChallengeMandatory Settlement ConferenceExpedited HearingAgreed Medical EvaluatorTesticular InjuryPsychiatric InjuryLow Back Injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,988 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