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
Aug 28, 1980

Parisi v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted a petitioner's motion to modify a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Waterfront Commission, limiting its scope to the records of Dominick Mancini. However, this decision was unanimously reversed on appeal. The appellate court denied the petitioner's motion in its entirety, ruling that the subpoena, which sought sign-in and attendance records of waterfront workers' compensation patients treated by the petitioner (a doctor), was legitimate. The court found that the subpoena was neither arbitrary nor in excess of the commission's jurisdiction, citing the commission's ongoing investigation into fraudulent workers' compensation claims by longshoremen. The appellate court also concluded that the subpoena was not vague or overly broad.

Subpoena Duces TecumWaterfront CommissionWorkers' Compensation ClaimsFraud InvestigationJurisdiction of CommissionScope of SubpoenaAppellate ReviewMotion to Set AsideDenial of MotionRecords Production
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

The Grand Jury of New York County issued subpoenas duces tecum to the law firm of John Doe, P. C., seeking various records. John Doe, P. C. moved to quash or modify these subpoenas, asserting attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. After an in camera review of 109 files, the court denied the attorney-client privilege claim for two files due to insufficient proof of confidentiality. For the work product privilege, the court applied the crime-fraud exception for specific subpoenaed records, citing an ongoing investigation into corruption in personal injury litigation. The court also narrowly construed the work product privilege. Consequently, the motion was granted for eight specific files found to contain protected attorney work product, while denied for the remaining files. The records not protected by privilege were ordered to be delivered to the District Attorney by August 18, 1988, following service of the decision on August 16, 1988.

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Doe

This case involves an antitrust investigation into the linen supply industry in the New York Metropolitan area. Grand Jury subpoenas were served on various linen supply companies (Suppliers), their association (Linen Supply Institute of New York), and a union (Laundry Workers International Union, Local 284 AFL). The Suppliers, Association, and Union filed motions to quash or modify these subpoenas, citing unreasonableness, oppressiveness, and jurisdictional doubts. District Judge McGOHEY largely denied these motions, asserting the Grand Jury's broad investigative powers and confirming the reasonableness of the subpoena's scope and timeframe. However, the court did grant limited relief by exempting documents already possessed by the Government and by narrowing certain demands related to the Union's internal financial data.

AntitrustGrand JurySubpoena Duces TecumQuashing SubpoenaModifying SubpoenaLinen Supply IndustryLabor UnionInterstate CommerceJudicial DiscretionDepartment of Justice
References
23
Case No. ADJ10091615
Regular
Oct 20, 2016

Joan De Silva vs. Mission Hospital, SEDGWICK 14442 ORANGE

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Mission Hospital's Petition for Removal, rescinding an order that denied their motion to quash two subpoenas. The Board found the subpoenas overbroad and potentially sought documents protected by Evidence Code section 1157 (hospital peer review) and HIPAA (confidential patient information). Furthermore, the Board determined the subpoenas lacked sufficient specificity regarding the scope of records requested. The case was returned to the trial level for a hearing to address these concerns and determine the appropriate scope of discovery.

Petition for RemovalMotion to Quash SubpoenaSubpoena Duces TecumEvidence Code Section 1157HIPAAPeer Review CommitteesInfectious Control ReportsOperating RoomRedactionOverbroad Discovery
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Served on National Broadcasting Co.

The opinion addresses motions by news broadcasters to quash Grand Jury subpoenas demanding unbroadcast videotapes ("out-takes") of a June 30, 1998 protest in Manhattan, where police officers were injured and attackers unidentified. The movants invoked Civil Rights Law § 79-h, the "Shield Law," which provides qualified protection for non-confidential news. The court, presided over by Justice Jeffrey M. Atlas, denied the motions, finding that the prosecution met the statutory burden by demonstrating the out-takes are highly material, relevant, critical, necessary, and not obtainable from any alternative source for the ongoing assault investigation.

Grand JurySubpoenaShield LawJournalist PrivilegeFreedom of the PressUnbroadcast FootageOut-takesCivil Rights LawNon-confidential InformationAssault Investigation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Subpoenas for Local 17, 135, 257 & 608 of United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America

This case addresses a challenge by four Union Locals of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, against subpoenas duces tecum issued by a New York County Grand Jury. The subpoenas sought membership lists as part of an investigation into corruption within the carpentry and drywall industry. The Locals argued that the subpoenas violated their members' First Amendment associational rights and Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Grand Jury's legitimate and compelling need for the lists to conduct its corruption investigation outweighed the asserted constitutional concerns. The court concluded that the subpoenas were neither overly broad nor burdensome, and the information sought was relevant to the ongoing investigation.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentAssociational RightsFreedom of AssociationUnreasonable Search and SeizureOverbreadthCompelling State InterestCorruption Investigation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lynch v. Waterfront Commission

The president of the New York Shipping Association-International Longshoremen’s Association Medical Center of New York, Inc. moved to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor. The movant argued that the commission lacked jurisdiction, the subpoena was overly broad, and it demanded privileged medical records. The commission initiated the investigation after the New York State Department of Insurance found discrepancies during an audit of the medical center’s welfare fund, specifically regarding a contract with T. C. Dental Laboratories, which was also implicated in irregularities in a New Jersey investigation. The court denied the motion, affirming the commission's jurisdiction under the Waterfront Commission Compact, stating that misuse of worker funds constitutes a 'waterfront practice' within its purview. The court also found the subpoena was not unduly broad, as it requested only corporate minutes relevant to the investigation, and confirmed that privileged medical records were not required.

Subpoena QuashWaterfront CommissionJudicial ReviewCorporate GovernanceFinancial AuditMedical FundDental ServicesLabor WelfareRegulatory JurisdictionCorrupt Practices
References
1
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Stephen F.

In a neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, the Beth Israel Medical Center moved to quash a subpoena for records of the respondents, citing confidentiality protections under 21 U.S. Code § 1175 for drug abuse prevention records. The court weighed the public interest in child protection against patient confidentiality. It granted the motion to quash concerning the father's records, noting no allegation of neglect due to his drug use. For the mother's records, the court found the existing evidence of her prior drug use (admissions to a caseworker, grandmothe, and a prior Family Court finding) would make the subpoenaed records merely cumulative, thus not meeting the 'good cause' standard for immediate disclosure. However, the court reserved its final decision on quashing the subpoena for the mother's records, awaiting testimony from the doctor who diagnosed the child with 'failure to thrive' to determine if the records are relevant to the cause of the condition.

Neglect ProceedingChild ProtectionConfidentiality of RecordsDrug Abuse TreatmentSubpoenaFamily CourtMedical Records DisclosurePhysician-Patient PrivilegeGood Cause StandardCumulative Evidence
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 765 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