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

Brownstone Publishers, Inc. v. New York City Department of Buildings

The petitioner publishing company sought information from the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) in a computer tape format. The DOB offered the information in hard copy, citing no obligation to accommodate format preference, despite the petitioner's claim of substantial cost and difficulty in re-digitizing hard copies. The court, noting New York's Public Officers Law, emphasized the requirement for 'full' or 'maximum' access to records, which includes computer tapes or discs. It determined that providing over a million pages in hard copy would not constitute reasonable or maximum access. The court found no significant hardship for the DOB to provide the data electronically at the petitioner's expense. Consequently, the CPLR article 78 petition was granted, directing the DOB to provide the electronic records in computer tape format.

Freedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawInformation FormatElectronic RecordsHard CopyData AccessCPLR Article 78Government TransparencyCommercial InterestsNew York City Department of Buildings
References
2
Case No. ADJ8147541
Regular
Apr 26, 2013

VERONICA ARZAGA vs. KOOSHAREM CORP. dba SELECT STAFFING, ESIS/ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding the applicant's social security number. While the defendant argued the information was crucial for discovery, the Board adopted the WCJ's report which found social security number disclosure is voluntary under California regulations. The majority determined the defendant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the order denying further compelled disclosure. A dissenting opinion argued for granting removal to require disclosure, deeming it relevant for identification and distinguishing it from protected immigration status information.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Removalworkers' compensation administrative law judgesocial security numberdiscoverydepositionFifth Amendmentself-incriminationOrder to Compel Production of Identificationapportionment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Amigon

Plaintiff Maria Flores sued her former employer, La Flor Bakery, for unpaid overtime wages under federal and state laws. During discovery, La Flor Bakery requested Flores' immigration documents, social security number, and passports, arguing this information was relevant to a defense based on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) and the Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. Supreme Court decision, which it contended would preclude back pay for undocumented aliens. Flores filed a motion for a protective order, asserting that her immigration status was irrelevant to her Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims and that disclosing such information would have an intimidating effect. The court, distinguishing Hoffman Plastic as applying to back pay for work not performed, found Flores' immigration status irrelevant to her claims for wages for work already completed. Consequently, the court granted Flores' motion for a protective order, concluding that the potential prejudice of disclosing her immigration status significantly outweighed any minimal probative value for the defense.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAImmigration Reform and Control ActIRCAundocumented workersback payovertime wagesprotective orderdiscoveryimmigration status
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
Case No. ADJ7014135
Regular
Nov 29, 2010

VIANEY VARGAS vs. SELECT STAFFING, ESIS

This case involves an applicant who invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition, refusing to answer questions related to her identifying information and potential prior claims. The defendant sought to bar benefits, arguing the applicant's refusal hindered discovery necessary to determine liability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, recognizing that while the applicant cannot be compelled to incriminate herself, she also cannot use the privilege to shield herself from providing relevant information needed for the defense. The Board remanded the case for the WCJ to determine which specific questions are directly relevant to the litigation, allowing the applicant to answer them or face potential dismissal of her claim.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Order Suspending Action and Barring BenefitsPetition for SanctionsFifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationDue ProcessCross-examinationDiscoveryDirectly RelevantLabor Code 4050
References
6
Case No. ADJ9803664
Regular
Dec 04, 2015

JUAN GONZALEZ (Deceased), DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL DISABILITY & RETIREMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal and rescinded a judge's order that stayed proceedings pending the outcome of a probate case. The WCAB determined that probate court findings have limited relevance to determining workers' compensation death benefits and that the WCAB has sole jurisdiction over dependency issues. By staying the proceedings, the judge's order caused significant prejudice to the defendant, SCIF, by hindering discovery and resolution of a potential partial dependency claim. The matter was reset for further proceedings, with parties urged to attempt informal settlement.

Death benefitsDependencyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceProbate proceedingsLabor CodeCalifornia Highway PatrolState Compensation Insurance FundDeath Without Dependents Unit
References
1
Case No. ADJ9614872
Regular
Nov 30, 2015

BRUNO SALAMA vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Uber's Petition for Removal challenging the denial of their motion to compel the applicant driver's tax returns. The applicant sustained an industrial injury and claimed benefits, with Uber contesting his worker classification. The WCAB found that the tax privilege protects income tax returns and is not automatically waived by filing a workers' compensation claim. Furthermore, Uber failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm as alternative discovery methods exist to obtain relevant information regarding the applicant's income and expenses.

Petition for RemovalMotion to CompelTax ReturnsTax PrivilegeIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationBorello FactorsIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceWCAB
References
12
Case No. ADJ3540065 (SAC 0361552)
Regular
Jan 23, 2017

BRADLEY MAXHAM vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendants' Petition for Removal, rescinding a prior WCJ order. The Board clarified that "information" provided to an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) includes treating physician records and relevant medical/non-medical records. A communication becomes "information" if it contains, references, or encloses such records. The case was returned for further proceedings to determine if applicant's letters to the AMEs improperly conveyed "information" without party agreement.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorInformationCommunicationLabor Code Section 4062.3Petition for RemovalEn Banc DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPrejudiceIrreparable HarmSubstantial Evidence
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centeno-Bernuy v. Becker Farms

Four migrant agricultural workers sued their former agricultural employers (including Melinda and Oscar Vizcarra, associated with Becker Farms) for various labor law violations and breach of contract, alleging underpayment, substandard housing, and illegal charges. During discovery, defendants sought information on the plaintiffs' post-employment residences and subsequent employment. Plaintiffs moved for a protective order, arguing the information was irrelevant and sought for harassment. The court granted the protective order, concluding that the potential for intimidation and harassment by a former owner, Donald Perry, who had a history of making inflammatory claims against the plaintiffs, outweighed any relevance of the requested information.

protective orderdiscoveryharassmentmigrant workersagricultural laborimmigration statusfederal rules of civil procedurelabor law violationsintimidationWestern District of New York
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,917 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