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

In re Nan FF.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Otsego County which dismissed an adult adoptee's application to unseal her adoption records. The petitioner sought access to the records based on medical need, as per Domestic Relations Law § 114 (4). However, her application was denied because she failed to provide a certification from a licensed New York physician. Additionally, the submitted letters from an out-of-state social worker and physician did not sufficiently indicate that access to the records was "required" to address a serious illness, nor did they identify the specific information needed, thus failing to establish prima facie good cause under the statute. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's dismissal of the application.

Adoption LawRecord SealingMedical GroundsGood Cause RequirementStatutory ComplianceFamily Court ProcedureAppellate ReviewPhysician CertificationOut-of-State CertificationDocumentary Evidence
References
5
Case No. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. ADJ1715257
Regular
Dec 10, 2010

BYRON BREAULT vs. F MCLINTOCKS SALOON, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, finding the record inadequate to support the finding of 100% permanent disability. The Board noted due process concerns due to the inadequate record and the WCJ's lack of specific evidentiary support for the decision. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to create a proper record and address vocational evidence concerning earning capacity. The WCJ must ensure all evidence is formally offered and ruled upon, and the decision must be based on specific evidence, not personal opinion.

Petition for ReconsiderationGood Cause to ReopenPermanent Disability RatingVocational Rehabilitation ExpertDue ProcessInadequate RecordSub Rosa VideoSubstantial EvidenceTotal Loss of Earning CapacityFuture Earning Capacity
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2005

Ackerman Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Hayes

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, concerning discovery matters. The plaintiff had sued the defendant for alleged conversion of payments, and the defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract on seven specific projects. The defendant sought to compel discovery of financial records for all projects they worked on for the plaintiff, not just the seven disputed ones. The Supreme Court initially granted this broad discovery, but upon appeal, it was determined that the court erred in compelling discovery for projects not subject to the litigation. Consequently, the order was modified to deny the defendant's motion for discovery of records unrelated to the specific litigated projects. Additionally, the court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for a protective order concerning a subpoena for bank records.

DiscoveryBreach of ContractConversion of PaymentsLien LawSubpoena Duces TecumProtective OrderAppellate ReviewConstruction LawFinancial RecordsCounterclaim
References
1
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

New York State Police v. Charles Q.

A State Trooper, acquitted of criminal charges, had his criminal records sealed. His employer, the State Police (petitioner), subsequently sought to unseal these records for use in a disciplinary proceeding. The County Court initially granted the application to unseal. On appeal, the court reversed the County Court's order, ruling that the State Police, when conducting a disciplinary proceeding against one of its employees, is not acting as a 'law enforcement agency' under CPL 160.50 (1) (d) (ii) and thus has no statutory right to access sealed records. Furthermore, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the 'compelling demonstration' required for exercising the court's inherent power to unseal records, as it did not demonstrate that other investigative avenues had been exhausted or were unavailable. Consequently, the application to unseal the records was denied.

Sealed recordsCriminal Procedure Law 160.50Disciplinary proceedingState TrooperPublic employerLaw enforcement agencyInherent court powerUnsealing recordsAppellate reviewAdministrative determination
References
6
Case No. 09 Civ. 10101 / 09 Civ. 10105
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2018

Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC

This Opinion and Order addresses three motions in consolidated cases: Defendants' motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs' motion to amend complaints, and Defendants' motion for interlocutory appeal certification. The Court partially granted Defendants' reconsideration motion, awarding summary judgment for 17 additional videos due to lack of employee interaction or non-obvious infringement, while denying it for 18 others. Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaints to add more infringement instances was granted. Finally, the Court granted certification for interlocutory appeal on two specific questions: the applicability of DMCA safe-harbor to pre-1972 sound recordings and the standard for "red flag" knowledge based on service provider viewing of copyrighted content. The case is stayed pending appeal.

Copyright InfringementDigital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)Safe Harbor ProvisionSummary JudgmentReconsideration MotionInterlocutory AppealRed Flag KnowledgePre-1972 Sound RecordingsFair Use DoctrineService Provider Liability
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mister Vee Productions, Inc. v. LeBlanc

This case involves a dispute over copyright infringement and breach of contract. Three corporations—Mister Vee, Delightful, and Vigor—sued individuals known as The Rhythm Makers, Paul Service, and corporations Arista Records, G.Q. Publishing, and Arista Music. Delightful alleged copyright infringement for the song 'Soul On Your Side.' Mister Vee and Vigor claimed The Rhythm Makers breached an exclusive agreement by recording other songs with Arista. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss non-copyright claims due to lack of pendent jurisdiction. The court ultimately declined jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims, finding they did not share a 'common nucleus of operative fact' with the federal copyright claim.

Copyright InfringementBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law ClaimsMusic Industry DisputeExclusive Recording AgreementMotion to DismissJudicial EconomyCommon Nucleus of Operative Fact
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alberghini v. Tizes

The petitioner, a resident and taxpayer of Orange County, New York, initiated a proceeding under CPLR 7803 to compel the Orange County Health Department to allow inspection of records pertaining to 25 migrant labor camps. These records included annual surveys, enforcement actions, and permit applications from 1970-1971, as mandated by various sections of the Public Health Law. The respondent contended that the records were not subject to public inspection and that disclosure could lead to penalties for camp operators. The court, citing the general policy of public access to records in New York, found no statutory basis for keeping these specific records confidential. It determined that the public interest in transparency regarding the Health Department's functions and sanitary conditions in labor camps outweighed any argument for concealment, thereby granting the petitioner's request to inspect the records.

Public RecordsFreedom of InformationMigrant Labor CampsPublic Health LawOrange CountyTransparencySanitary ConditionsArticle 78 ProceedingConfidentialityCitizen Rights
References
3
Case No. ADJ2557593 (OAK 321451) ADJ7115613
Regular
Nov 08, 2012

SHIRLEY WASHINGTON vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the trial judge's decisions and returned the case for further development of the record. The Board found errors in apportionment regarding the applicant's upper extremity disability to non-industrial factors, specifically a somatoform disorder. Additionally, the WCAB determined the record needed further development on apportionment between the applicant's specific and cumulative injuries. Issues of the permanent and stationary date and potential Labor Code section 4658(d) adjustments also require further adjudication.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDReconsiderationFindings of FactAward and OrdersPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryApportionmentNon-Industrial Factors
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,447 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