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. CR-007805-25BX
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2025

People v. Jefferson M.Q.

The case addresses whether the 2025 amendments to Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Law, defining 'due diligence' for discovery, apply to a certificate of compliance filed before the amendments' effective date. The defendant, charged with driving while intoxicated, moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument due to the prosecution's failure to provide Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) attachments as ordered by the court. The court determined that the 2025 amendments are procedural and remedial, thus applying to pending criminal actions regardless of when the certificate of compliance was filed. Applying the 2025 due diligence standard, the court found the People failed to exercise due diligence by making perfunctory efforts, missing statutory deadlines, delaying in requesting ordered material, and failing to explain or correct the lapse. Consequently, the court deemed the People's certificate of compliance invalid and their statement of readiness illusory. As the People exceeded their allotted speedy trial time (92 chargeable days against a 90-day limit), the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument was granted.

Discovery ComplianceDue DiligenceCertificate of ComplianceSpeedy TrialStatutory InterpretationRetroactivity of StatutesCriminal Procedure LawIAB AttachmentsMisdemeanor ChargesProsecutorial Misconduct
References
30
Case No. ADJ3390481, ADJ4560133
Regular
Mar 11, 2019

GILDARDO PATINO vs. State Compensation Insurance Fund, Arrowood Indemnity Company

This case concerns the applicant's workers' compensation claims and the defendants' failure to depose a key medical expert before his death. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendants' petitions for removal and denied their petitions for reconsideration. The WCAB found that the defendants did not demonstrate due diligence in scheduling the expert's deposition after the WCJ granted further discovery. Therefore, the WCAB upheld the WCJ's finding that the defendants failed to exercise due diligence.

WCABGildardo PatinoApplicantIndustrial InjuryPsycheGroinInternal SystemUrological SystemTeethExtremities
References
0
Case No. ADJ10203862
Regular
Dec 08, 2016

EARNEST YBARRA vs. BIG 5 CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

Defendant Big 5 Corporation sought removal from a WCJ's order continuing trial to allow the applicant to supplement the medical record. The defendant argued this continuance was due to applicant's counsel's lack of diligence and violated their due process rights. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy and that the issue of attorney diligence could be addressed during attorney fee determination. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalMinute Orderpanel qualified medical examinerPQMEmedical recordsLabor Code section 5502due processReport and Recommendationcontinued trial
References
2
Case No. ADJ9549383
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

JUANA ZELEDON DE TREMINIO vs. ESPOSTOS FINE FOODS INC. dba BOX LUNCH CO.

The defendant sought removal of the WCJ's orders to reopen discovery and take the case off calendar, arguing the applicant lacked due diligence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's minute orders, and returned the case for trial without further discovery. The Board found the WCJ erred by taking the case off calendar and reopening discovery before trial, as there was no established record of deficient medical reports to justify such actions. The question of due diligence and substantial evidence should be determined based on admitted evidence at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMinute OrdersReopening DiscoveryOff CalendarDue DiligencePrejudicialIrreparably HarmfulMedical Provider Network (MPN)Continuity of Care
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06881 [188 AD3d 1699]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2020

People v. Anderson

The People appealed an order that dismissed an indictment against Chasarea L. Anderson on statutory speedy trial grounds, specifically concerning a delay between July 14, 2017, and February 12, 2018. The defendant was indicted but later apprehended in Georgia. The County Court initially concluded that the People failed to demonstrate due diligence in locating the defendant during the aforementioned period. However, the Appellate Division reversed this finding, determining that law enforcement did exercise due diligence by thoroughly checking various databases, social media, criminal history reports, and investigating known addresses and employers. Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the period of delay should be excluded from speedy trial calculations, reinstated the indictment, and remitted the matter to County Court for further proceedings.

Speedy TrialDue DiligenceIndictmentDismissal ReversalSpeedy Trial CalculationAppellate ReviewCriminal Procedure LawNew York LawAbsence ExclusionApprehension Effort
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1994

People v. Chi Keung Seto

The defendant, Chi Keung Seto, moved to dismiss his indictment, which included charges of first-degree kidnapping and second-degree assault, citing a violation of his speedy trial rights under CPL 30.30. The legal action began in November 1990, but a bench warrant was issued in March 1991 after Seto failed to appear in court. The People contended they exercised due diligence in locating Seto, who was later discovered to have been a shooting victim, comatose in a hospital under a different identity, and subsequently transferred to a rehabilitation center and then to California. Following a May 1994 hearing, the court, presided over by Justice Alfred H. Kleiman, ruled that the prosecution's efforts constituted due diligence despite not linking the shooting victim to the outstanding warrant. Consequently, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment.

Speedy TrialCPL 30.30Due DiligenceBench WarrantIndictment DismissalFelony ChargesKidnappingAssaultCriminal Possession of WeaponFugitive Search
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tallini v. Martino

The claimant, who suffered a permanent partial back injury in 1959, was awarded workers' compensation benefits. Years later, in Italy, he was involved in a fatal shooting incident but was acquitted of murder due to total insanity and committed to a psychiatric ward. The employer and carrier sought to suspend his benefits, arguing he was imprisoned. The Workers' Compensation Board granted the suspension, but this decision was appealed. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, holding that an individual acquitted of a crime due to total insanity and committed to a mental institution does not lose their entitlement to workers' compensation benefits, especially when the underlying physical and industrial disability continues. The court emphasized that mental illness should not deprive an employee of otherwise due compensation and that the Board's decision was contrary to law and public policy.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityInsanity AcquittalMental InstitutionBenefit SuspensionAppellate ReviewPublic PolicyDisability BenefitsLegal PrecedentRemand
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Michigan Logistics Inc.

Plaintiffs (Johanna Diaz, et al.) sued Michigan Logistics Inc. d/b/a Diligent Deliveries, Northeast Logistics, Inc. d/b/a Diligent Deliveries (collectively, "Diligent"), and Parts Authority Inc. for alleged violations of the FLSA and NYLL, claiming misclassification as independent contractors and denial of minimum wage and overtime. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, citing owner-operator agreements with arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing they were exempt from the FAA as transportation workers and that Parts Authority, a nonsignatory, could not compel arbitration. The court, presided by Judge Wexler, granted the defendants' motion, finding that even if the FAA did not apply, New York arbitration law favored arbitration and that Parts Authority could compel arbitration under equitable estoppel. Consequently, the Opt-in Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the case was stayed pending arbitration.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawArbitrationIndependent Contractor ClassificationWage and Hour ClaimsOvertime CompensationClass Action WaiverCollective Action WaiverFederal Arbitration ActEquitable Estoppel
References
22
Case No. ADJ6985337
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

Richard Brennan vs. Los Angeles Kings, Federal Insurance Company

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant whose deposition was repeatedly missed, delaying discovery. The defendant employer requested removal of an order setting a trial date due to due process concerns regarding discovery and trial scope. The Appeals Board granted removal, amending the prior order to allow the admission of qualified medical examiner deposition transcripts, finding the defendant exercised due diligence. The Board affirmed the trial date but ensured the record would remain open for these crucial depositions.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedOther SettlementDue ProcessDiscoveryDepositionQualified Medical EvaluatorsQMEMandatory Settlement ConferenceMSC
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,625 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