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. 2021 NY Slip Op 07264 [202 AD3d 125]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2021

Siegel v. Snyder

This case addresses the quality-assurance privilege and the party-statement exception under New York's Education Law and Public Health Law, regarding the discoverability of medical peer-review meeting minutes. The plaintiff sought minutes from a Trauma Peer Review Committee concerning a decedent's treatment, to which defendants asserted privilege. The Appellate Division clarified that the burden lies with the party claiming privilege to prove that unidentified statements in the minutes were made by nonparties, thus ruling that statements with unidentified speakers are discoverable under the party-statement exception. However, the court also determined that references to future corrective actions in the minutes are protected from disclosure. The Supreme Court's order was modified to reflect these findings, affirming the discoverability of unidentified statements while granting a protective order for subsequent corrective action discussions.

Medical MalpracticeQuality Assurance PrivilegePeer ReviewParty Statement ExceptionEducation LawPublic Health LawDiscoveryConfidentialityHospital RecordsUnidentified Speaker
References
42
Case No. ADJ13120564
Regular
Sep 15, 2022

Hector Barragan vs. Stanford Healthcare, Safety National Casualty, Tristar Insurance Group

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior order that deemed an EAMS document discoverable. The Board admitted the document into evidence as Exhibit XX but reversed the prior ruling on discoverability. The Board found the document not relevant to the applicant's alleged foot and ankle injuries, nor was there a waiver of privacy. Consequently, the defendant is prohibited from producing the document without WCAB authorization.

EAMSdiscoverablerelevantprivacy waiverQualified Medical EvaluatorPetition for Removalin camera reviewinadmissibilitycumulative injurydeposition transcript
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1998

Brownell v. Roadway Package System, Inc.

Plaintiff Deborah Brownell filed a sexual harassment suit against her former employer, RPS, under Title VII and New York's Human Rights Law. She alleged a hostile work environment and retaliation following her termination. The central dispute concerned the discoverability of written statements provided by RPS employees to Defendant's counsel, which RPS claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. The Court ruled that RPS waived these privileges by asserting the adequacy of its investigation as an affirmative defense, making the statements discoverable. Consequently, the Defendant was ordered to produce the statements to the Plaintiff.

Sexual HarassmentTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationDiscovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork-Product DoctrineImplied WaiverAffirmative DefenseEmployee Statements
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2015

ABRAHA, LUAM K. v. ADAMS, M.D., CRISTINE M.

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the discoverability of a plaintiff's shelter records from a domestic violence victims' shelter. The plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including medical professionals and a medical center, for alleged medical malpractice. The Supreme Court initially conducted an in camera review and ruled that most records were not subject to disclosure. The Appellate Division, however, determined that the shelter records are not privileged and are subject to disclosure if material and necessary, especially since the plaintiff waived any privilege by placing her medical and psychological condition in controversy. The order was modified to direct the plaintiff to provide a privilege log to the defendants, and the matter was remitted for a de novo determination on discoverability.

Discovery DisputeMedical MalpracticePrivilege LogShelter RecordsDomestic ViolenceWaiver of PrivilegeIn Camera ReviewCPLR 3122(b)Social Services LawAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ3190249 (SFO 0500553)
Regular
Mar 24, 2010

Quintella Eutsey vs. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, dismissing the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The Board found the prior administrative law judge's order improperly limited discovery into the applicant's psychiatric injury claim. The Board rescinded the previous order, allowing further deposition to explore the applicant's full medical history relevant to her psyche claim, as this is discoverable when a psychological injury is at issue. Both parties were admonished to conduct themselves professionally during future discovery.

removalpetition for reconsiderationdiscovery disputepsyche injurydeposition testimonyright lower extremityindustrial injurypersonal lifefamily lifepast history
References
7
Case No. ADJ292246 (SFO 0505632) ADJ2419734 (SFO 0504906) ADJ2647713 (SFO 0504908)
Regular
Jan 25, 2018

ANNA HONG vs. SBC INTERNET SERVICES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Anna Hong's petition for reconsideration because she was not aggrieved by a final or non-final order. The issues raised, including home health care and the discoverability of an investigator's report, were determined to be pre-trial matters not yet decided. The Board emphasized that a petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a final order that determines substantive rights or liabilities or a threshold issue. Since no decisions were issued at the hearing Ms. Hong referenced, her petition lacked a basis.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartyFinal OrderNon-Final OrderThreshold IssueExpedited HearingHome Health CareRequest for Authorization (RFA)Primary Treating Physician
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00638
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2015

Williamson v. Ogden Cap Properties, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked constructive notice of a defective mailbox panel, as they never inspected it. Their alleged lack of a key was not determinative, as a cursory inspection might have revealed the defect. The court also found that defendants failed to demonstrate their negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. Ultimately, plaintiff's testimony and a witness statement created an issue of fact regarding the defect's duration and discoverability, necessitating a trial.

Summary JudgmentConstructive NoticePremises LiabilityMailbox Panel DefectAppellate ReviewProximate CauseIssue of FactNegligencePostal Worker AccidentProperty Maintenance
References
5
Case No. ADJ8396609
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

KELLY SNOW vs. HEALTH NET, INC., SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding prior orders that compelled the release of her psychotherapist's records and quashed subpoenas. The applicant argued these records were privileged psychotherapist-patient communications, and the therapist was not a physician or psychologist, thus their records were not discoverable for QME review. The Board found that while the psychotherapist-patient privilege exists, it is subject to waiver when mental condition is placed in issue by the patient, but this waiver is limited to relevant records. The case was returned to the trial level to determine if Ms. Bradley's records are relevant to the disclosed psychiatric injury or unrelated.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Quash Subpoena Duces TecumPsychotherapist-patient privilegeQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 3209.3Administrative Director Rule 35Evidence Code section 1010Holder of the privilegeEvidence Code section 1013Evidence Code section 1014
References
3
Case No. ADJ8642319
Regular
Apr 24, 2015

ISABEL RAMIREZ-RAMOS (spouse), ANGEL RAMIREZ (deceased) vs. OSTERIA COPPA, LLC, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE (FARMERS INSURANCE)

This case involves a deceased worker whose employer, Osteria Coppa, LLC, is challenging the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's award of death benefits. The employer argued the WCJ erred by disallowing cross-examination and excluding a medical report. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the original award because the employer failed to reject the claim within 90 days, thus triggering a presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b). Furthermore, the employer could not rebut this presumption with the excluded medical report, as the information it contained was discoverable within the 90-day period through reasonable diligence.

WCABIsabel Ramirez-RamosAngel RamirezOsteria CoppaLLCTruck Insurance ExchangeADJ8642319Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurydeath benefits
References
3
Case No. ADJ8424952
Regular
Sep 10, 2014

ALFONSO CRUZ vs. SIERRA CIRCUITS, INC.; THE HARTFORD

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal regarding deposition questions about medical history and insurance coverage. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition in part, allowing questions about medical insurance and personal doctors, as these are discoverable under CCP § 2017.010. However, the WCAB found questions about past medical treatment paid by others and prior hospitalizations to be overbroad, as they could infringe on the physician-patient privilege regarding unrelated conditions. The Board ordered the applicant to answer specific questions but requires defendants to reframe broader questions concerning medical history to avoid privileged information.

Petition for RemovalFifth AmendmentFirst Amendmentphysician-patient privilegeconfidential communicationindustrial injurymedical historydeposition questionsCode of Civil Procedure section 2017.010Evidence Code sections 990
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 25 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