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

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

Norero v. 99-105 Third Avenue Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, an employee of JLC Corp., was injured after partially falling into an unprotected floor opening at a construction site owned by 99-105 Third Avenue Realty, LLC, and managed by general contractor Bella Builders Associates, LLC. The plaintiff sued, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability as premature due to outstanding discovery. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for Labor Law violations and that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact or demonstrate that the motion was premature. Consequently, the appellate court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability against 99-105 and Bella.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Premises LiabilityOwner NegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilityAppellate ReversalUnprotected Opening
References
9
Case No. ADJ10810740
Regular
Sep 10, 2019

EDWART HOVANESIAN vs. ARCADIA TRANSIT, INC., dba SUPERSHUTTLE OF SAN FERNANDO

This case involves an employer's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The employer argued their due process rights were violated when the judge denied their post-trial motions to compel discovery and present additional witnesses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that discovery closed at the mandatory settlement conference per statute and the employer failed to demonstrate due diligence. The Board concluded that procedural rules regarding timely disclosure of evidence do not violate due process, and the employer's strategic decision not to complete discovery did not excuse their failure to comply.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeIndependent ContractorDue ProcessMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery CutoffLabor Code Section 5502(d)(3)Pre-trial Conference Statement
References
10
Case No. SAU8840977
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

ERIC BRAGER vs. RKL TECHNOLOGIES, CENTER FOR BETTER HEALTH dba SOUTHLAND SPINE AND REHABILITATION

Liaison counsel for insurance carriers sought reconsideration or removal of a Discovery Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 1, 2025, which voided prior orders and mandated refiling of documents. The carriers argued lack of jurisdiction, insufficient evidence, and violation of due process, while a lien claimant opposed, asserting the judge was disqualified. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the Discovery Order was not a final order, but granted removal, concluding the order violated due process due to lack of notice and a fair hearing. Consequently, the Appeals Board rescinded the Discovery Order and returned the matter for further proceedings to properly adjudicate the allegations against the prior WCJ's orders.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDiscovery OrderVoiding Prior OrdersDisqualification of JudgeDue ProcessFair HearingLabor Code Section 5909Labor Code Section 5313
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

United States v. Mount Sinai Hospital

This *qui tam* action, initiated by relators Xiomary Ortiz and Joseph Gaston against Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and Mount Sinai Radiology Associates, alleges violations of federal and New York State False Claims Acts due to overbilling for radiology services. The present memorandum and order addresses various discovery disputes raised by both parties. These include disagreements over the scope of defendants' privilege waiver concerning internal investigations, the appropriateness of confidentiality designations on produced documents, the extent of required revenue document production, and the discoverability of relators' disclosure statements to the government. The court's decision involves a partial granting and partial denial of the applications, including orders for in camera review of certain emails, reconsideration of confidentiality designations, production of specific revenue figures, and a redacted relators' document index.

Qui Tam ActionFalse Claims ActMedicare FraudMedicaid FraudDiscovery DisputesAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineInternal InvestigationsConfidentiality DesignationsRevenue Targets
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lindsey v. County of Erie

The plaintiff, Ms. Lindsey, an employee of Ciminelli Construction Company, was injured at a worksite on March 21, 2000, and subsequently sought both Labor Law benefits and workers' compensation. After workers' compensation benefits were suspended due to alleged misrepresentation, Ms. Lindsey filed a motion seeking to compel Travelers Insurance Company, the compensation carrier, to produce surveillance videotapes prior to further Workers' Compensation Board proceedings. Travelers Insurance Company argued that such discovery would violate administrative rules; however, the court found that CPLR 3101 (i) was controlling in the civil action. The court further determined that Travelers, despite not being a direct party to the Labor Law action, created the surveillance tapes for its overall defense of claims against its insured, making them discoverable. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion, ordering Travelers Insurance Company to immediately deliver all surveillance tapes to the plaintiff's counsel.

Discovery MotionSurveillance VideotapesWorkers' CompensationLabor LawCPLR 3101(i)Insurance Carrier LiabilityAdministrative RulesCivil ProcedureEmployer LiabilityNonparty Discovery
References
7
Case No. ADJ3972762
Regular
Apr 11, 2014

LUCILLE MALDONADO vs. JET DELIVERY SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for removal, which sought to rescind an order closing discovery and continuing the trial. The lien claimant argued they had not received necessary medical reports to prove their lien. The majority adopted the WCJ's reasoning for denial, while a dissenting commissioner argued the defendant violated discovery rules by failing to serve the reports and that the case should have been postponed until service occurred. The dissenting opinion also highlighted the lien claimant's potential violation of Rule 10622 by failing to disclose reports.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantMedical ReportsMedical-Legal ReportsWCJWCAB Rule 10770.1(h)WCAB Rule 10608(f)WCAB Rule 10608(b)Compromise and ReleaseBurden of Proof
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glod v. Morrill Press Division of Engraph, Inc.

James and Lisa Glod sued multiple defendants for injuries James sustained from chemical exposure at his workplace, alleging strict products liability, negligence, breach of contract, warranties, and statutory violations. The Supreme Court initially dismissed strict products liability, negligence claims as time-barred and a statutory violation claim for failure to state a cause of action. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating the dismissed causes of action. It determined that CPLR 214-c, concerning the discovery of injury for latent effects of exposure, applied and that the date of discovery was a question of fact for trial. The court also affirmed the constitutionality of CPLR 214-c and that plaintiffs had a reasonable time to commence action under the shortened limitations period.

Chemical exposureOccupational illnessWorkers' compensationStatute of limitationsCPLR 214-cDiscovery ruleLatent effectsProduct liabilityNegligenceStatutory violations
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 6,339 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