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

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. 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

Hoffmann v. S.J. Hawk, Inc.

In an action seeking damages for personal injuries, the defendants initiated an appeal against two orders issued by the Supreme Court, Queens County. The first order, dated June 11, 1998, denied their motion for discovery related to earnings, no-fault benefits, and Workers’ Compensation benefits. The second order, dated September 14, 1998, rejected their request for the plaintiffs to provide authorization for obtaining Social Security Disability records. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in limiting collateral source discovery. The ruling referenced City of Mount Vernon v Lexington Ins. Co. as a general precedent.

DiscoveryCollateral Source RulePersonal Injury DamagesNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityAppellate ProcedureEvidence RulesJudicial DiscretionCivil Procedure
References
2
Case No. ADJ686632 (LAO 0573956)
Regular
Sep 28, 2016

GARY TOBIA vs. LA PETITE BOULANGERIA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY \& SURETY COMPANY, BROADSPIRE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal and rescinded the WCJ's August 18, 2016 order compelling discovery. The Board found the order to be overly broad and issued without a sufficient record to weigh discovery disputes. Furthermore, the relevance of the requested documents, particularly those dating back to the 1980s, was not adequately established, especially as the sole outstanding issue appears to be medical treatment. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify outstanding issues and create a proper record for any future discovery orders.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumWCJ OrderDiscovery DisputeClaims FileNon-Privileged RecordsEmployer's First Report of InjuryJob-Site PostingsMedical Treatment
References
3
Case No. ADJ7680003
Regular
Aug 20, 2018

VALERIE CROOK vs. SANTA YNEZ VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN PRESCHOOL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal challenging discovery closure orders issued by a workers' compensation judge (WCJ). The defendant argued that closing discovery prematurely would cause significant prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the removal, finding the WCJ erred in believing a peremptory challenge to their role prevented them from issuing discovery orders. The WCAB amended the original orders to allow the originally permitted discovery while otherwise affirming the WCJ's decisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPre-Trial Conference StatementDiscoveryVocational EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorSupplemental ReportPre-emptory ChallengeMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJ Authority
References
4
Case No. ADJ6739458 ADJ6739459
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

MARTA MAYA AFRIAT vs. UNITED AIRLINES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a WCJ's decision regarding applicant's cumulative trauma claim. Defendant argued it was denied due process as it was not afforded discovery or trial on this claim, having only agreed to submit issues regarding medical evidence discovery and Rule 30. The Board found the WCJ improperly ruled on the cumulative trauma claim's compensability, which was not limited to the agreed-upon discovery issues. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to ensure due process rights are met, including the defendant's right to discovery and trial.

WCABRemovalReconsiderationFindings of FactRulingMedical DiscoveryCompensableCumulative InjuryLabor Code Section 5402Due Process
References
10
Case No. ADJ9978064
Regular
Jan 27, 2017

, SANTOSSORTO vs. GIC TRANSPORT, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought removal from a trial setting, arguing discovery was incomplete and the treating physician had not issued a permanent and stationary report. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding no irreparable harm or substantial prejudice to justify this extraordinary remedy. The Board noted that issues regarding discovery diligence and the need for further evidence can be raised before the trial judge. Reconsideration remains an adequate remedy should an adverse decision issue later.

Petition for RemovalPermanent and StationaryDiscoveryTreating PhysicianPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue DiligenceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary Remedy
References
3
Case No. ADJ10219987
Regular
Aug 14, 2017

FERNANDO LOPEZ vs. PISMO COAST VILLAGE, INC., INSURANCE CO OF THE WEST

This case concerns a Petition for Removal filed by Pismo Coast Village, Inc. and Insurance Co. of the West (Defendants) in the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Defendants sought removal, arguing their due process rights were violated because the issue of injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) was not explicitly listed in the Applicant's declaration of readiness to proceed and they were denied complete discovery. The Administrative Law Judge recommended denial of the petition, finding the Defendants were aware AOE/COE was an issue and that their claimed discovery issues were not sufficiently demonstrated. The Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the ALJ's report and denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardInjury AOE/COEDue ProcessDiscoveryRegular PhysicianLabor Code Section 5701Mandatory Settlement ConferenceAmputationRight Foot
References
2
Case No. Index No. 23434/19|Appeal No. 5904|Case No. 2025-00403
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Santacruz v. 58 Gerry St LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order denying defendants' motion to amend their answer, vacate the note of issue, and compel additional discovery. Defendants sought to assert an affirmative defense and counterclaim for fraud based on an unrelated federal RICO complaint alleging a conspiracy by plaintiff's former attorneys and medical providers. The Supreme Court denied the motion to amend and to vacate the note of issue. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order to grant defendants' motion for additional discovery, specifically ordering plaintiff to appear for further deposition regarding the RICO action, without vacating the note of issue, and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's decision. The court reasoned that while the fraud allegations were unproven and insufficient for an affirmative defense, further deposition was warranted.

Fraud AllegationsRICO ActionDiscovery DisputeFurther DepositionMotion to AmendNote of IssueAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseCounterclaimWorkers' Compensation Claims
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldman v. Shenfeld

The court issued an order that modified a previous decision. Specifically, it denied a motion for discovery and inspection in its entirety. Furthermore, the order restricted the duration covered by an examination, stipulating that it should begin no earlier than July 1, 1928. The modified order was subsequently affirmed, and no costs were awarded to either party. The decision did not include a formal opinion, and the precise date for the examination was left to be determined in a future order. This panel consisted of Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Finch, McAvoy, and Proskauer, JJ.

References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,667 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