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
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eaton v. Chahal

This consolidated decision by Justice William H. Keniry addresses common discovery issues across six negligence actions in Rensselaer County Supreme Court. The primary focus is the requirement for a "good faith" effort to resolve discovery disputes, as mandated by section 202.7 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR). The court emphasizes that a "good faith" effort necessitates significant contact and negotiation between counsel. Due to a complete failure to comply with this rule, the motions and cross-motions in five cases (Eaton, Frament, Lindeman, Madsen, and Malave) are denied. In the Oathout case, the defendants' motion is conditionally granted, pending plaintiff's compliance with discovery demands. The court also outlines its position on substantive discovery issues like medical reports, collateral source information, statutory violations, age/date of birth, photographs, and authorizations for workers' compensation and no-fault insurance files.

Discovery disputesBill of particularsGood faith requirementCPLR Article 31Medical reportsCollateral source informationStatutory violationsWorkers' compensation filesNo-fault insurance filesJudicial discretion
References
19
Case No. SFO 0505138
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

FERNANDO MARTINEZ vs. D.H. SMITH COMPANY, INC, ICW GROUP

Defendant D.H. Smith Company sought removal and reconsideration of an order that closed discovery and set an expedited hearing for trial. The defendant argued due process violations due to incomplete discovery. However, the parties subsequently stipulated to reopen discovery and withdraw the petition, leading the Board to dismiss the defendant's request.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationExpedited HearingClosure of DiscoveryMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue Process ViolationIndustrial InjuryTemporary DisabilityAverage Weekly Earnings
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Napoleoni v. Union Hospital of the Bronx

This case involves an appeal concerning discovery motions in a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Rosemarie Carreras and Jade Napoleoni against doctors Sushila Gupta, Geraldine Ahneman, and St. Barnabas Hospital. The plaintiffs alleged negligence during prenatal care that led to Jade's severe abnormalities from placental abruption. Defendants sought to compel disclosure of Rosemarie Carreras's substance abuse treatment records, arguing a link between cocaine use during pregnancy and placental abruption. The Supreme Court initially denied extensive discovery, but the appellate court modified this decision. It ordered specific records from Daytop Village and St. Barnabas Hospital to be turned over and allowed further deposition of Carreras regarding her substance abuse during pregnancy, ruling that the plaintiff waived physician-patient privilege and that the public interest in discovery outweighed confidentiality.

Medical MalpracticeDiscovery DisputeSubstance Abuse RecordsPrenatal NegligencePlacental AbruptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeConfidentialityAppellate CourtCPLR
References
8
Case No. ADJ4378485 (FRE 0224099) ADJ3026496 (FRE 0238219)
Regular
Nov 23, 2010

VICTORIA TAYLOR vs. LEPRINO FOODS, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal regarding the compensability of a psychiatric injury claim. The Appeals Board granted removal, canceling a trial date because discovery, specifically a supplemental report from an agreed medical evaluator, was incomplete. The Board found the previous WCJ order establishing a discovery plan was reasonable and should not be circumvented. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to ensure adequate discovery and a fair defense.

Petition for RemovalPsychiatric InjuryDiscoveryAgreed Medical EvaluatorMedical ReportsDepositionSurveillance VideosSupplemental ReportOrder to QuashCompensability
References
0
Case No. ADJ9074792
Regular
Feb 27, 2014

SHAWNA PARKER vs. SONORA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

The Appeals Board denied Defendant's Petition for Removal seeking to rescind an order continuing the case for trial and keeping discovery open. Defendant argued discovery was incomplete due to a lack of QME reports and inability to depose witnesses. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, stating the trial judge could address any QME delays and assess the defendant's due diligence regarding discovery at the trial. A dissenting commissioner believed the complex claim warranted taking the case off calendar pending further medical evaluation.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Labor Code section 4062.2due diligencecontinuanceindustrial injurychemical exposurerespiratory systemanaphylaxiscardiac
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06517 [153 AD3d 1308]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2017

Antonyshyn v. Tishman Construction Corp.

In an action for personal injuries, plaintiff Yuriy Antonyshyn was injured in a scaffold accident. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against defendants Tishman Construction Corporation, 50 Varick, LLC, Foundations Group, Inc., and Nuway Interior Corp. The Supreme Court granted the motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the summary judgment motion was premature due to incomplete discovery. The court reasoned that further discovery might reveal facts suggesting the plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, thus denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment with leave to renew after discovery.

Scaffold AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentPremature MotionDiscoveryPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyOwner LiabilityContractor Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartels v. Rubel Corp.

The plaintiff, chairman of the Brewery Workers’ Pension Fund, seeks to hold an unnamed defendant accountable for an uncollected judgment exceeding $10,000. This judgment was originally obtained against Ebling Brewing Company, Inc., for unpaid pension fund contributions. The plaintiff alleges that Ebling was the defendant's wholly-owned subsidiary, operating as its agent under the defendant's extensive control. While the defendant moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff concurrently pursued discovery and inspection of the defendant's records. The court granted the plaintiff's discovery motion and decided to hold the summary judgment motion in abeyance, emphasizing the necessity for the plaintiff to access facts uniquely within the defendant's knowledge before a final determination.

Summary JudgmentDiscoveryCorporate VeilParent-Subsidiary LiabilityUnpaid ContributionsPension FundJudgment EnforcementInterlocutory OrderProcedural RulingAffiliation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Notaro v. Koch

The plaintiffs (James Notaro, George Longworth, and Pearse O’Callaghan), members of the Liberal Party, sued Edward Koch, Mayor of New York City and a gubernatorial candidate, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights. They claimed Koch threatened to fire Liberal Party members from state payroll if elected Governor and sought a permanent injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery to depose Koch within 30 days. The court denied this motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, a strong probability of success on the merits, a connection between expedited discovery and avoiding injury, or that their potential injury outweighed the defendant's burden. The court also noted weaknesses in their legal arguments, including prematurity and lack of state action, but denied the motion without prejudice, allowing them to refile with a stronger case.

Political AffiliationFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechExpedited DiscoveryCivil RightsIrreparable InjuryPreliminary InjunctionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(a)Constitutional LawGubernatorial Election
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Craig v. New York Telephone Co.

This appeal stems from a wrongful death action where the plaintiff's decedent died of a heart attack after working at a fire scene. The plaintiff sought discovery from the defendant, Telephone Company, regarding the fire and workplace conditions. The defendant appealed Justice Wright's order to comply with discovery demands. The appellate court modified the order, striking plaintiff's demand number two as overly broad and burdensome, while affirming demands three and four as sufficiently specific, thus partially affirming and partially modifying the original order.

DiscoveryInspectionWrongful DeathWorkplace SafetyFire IncidentAppellate ReviewProtective OrderBurdensome DemandsSpecificity in DiscoveryCivil Procedure
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,385 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