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. ADJ18376723
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

Miguel Mejinez vs. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding an order that rescinded a prior directive for the applicant to disclose medical history under Labor Code section 4663(d). The defendant argued that section 4663(d) compels disclosure upon request and that they suffered prejudice from the applicant's refusal. However, the Board, concurring with the WCJ's recommendation, found that while section 4663 broadened the scope of discovery, it did not expand the methods of compelled discovery, which are limited to oral testimony and records under Labor Code section 5708. Consequently, the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal, concluding that written interrogatories are not an appropriate method for compelled discovery in workers' compensation cases.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rescinding OrderMedical History DisclosureLabor Code Section 4663(d)Previous Permanent DisabilitiesPhysical ImpairmentsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWritten Interrogatories
References
12
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
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

Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v. New York State Department of State

Petitioners, identified as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, appealed a judgment that dismissed their challenge to a modification by respondents, the Secretary of State, Department of Environmental Conservation, and Department of State. The modification extended a statutorily protected environmental habitat in the Hudson River, now called 'Hudson Highlands,' impacting the area near Indian Point. Petitioners argued that the modification lacked a rational scientific basis, constituted formal rulemaking without proper procedure, and that the denial of their discovery requests was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to the agencies' interpretation of their regulations and finding the modification rational, not formal rulemaking, and the discovery denial justified.

Environmental ProtectionHabitat ModificationAgency DeferenceCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentRegulatory InterpretationScientific EvidenceFormal RulemakingAdministrative ProcedureDiscovery Denial
References
24
Case No. ADJ8809588
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

**SHARON SNOW,** vs. **WEST COAST COSMETIC MEDICAL; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,**

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after the trial judge ordered the case to trial and closed discovery. The defendant argues insufficient opportunity to conduct discovery, citing the applicant's cancellation of a deposition due to a perceived discrimination claim that was not formally filed. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding good cause to reopen discovery. The matter is returned to the trial level for a priority conference to ensure complete discovery before proceeding to trial.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDeposition CancellationLabor Code section 132aDiscovery CompletionIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryDigestive System InjuryExilis TechnicianMedical Report
References
0
Case No. ADJ10066398
Regular
May 12, 2016

ANTONIO HERNANDEZ vs. JOJO AUTOBODY, EMPLOYER'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

**Hernandez v. Jojo Autobody:** The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded an Order Approving Compromise and Release, and returned the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the applicant's allegations of fraud regarding the prior agreement were valid. The Board found that the applicant's petition should be treated as a request to set aside the previous award due to alleged false records and lack of understanding. **Hamlin v. Safeway, Inc.:** The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding the WCJ's decision to exclude portions of the applicant's personnel file. The Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate the exclusion would cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm, noting alternative discovery methods were available. The decision also clarified that certain documents admitted by the WCJ, though not formally logged in EAMS, were considered part of the record for review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJEvidentiary HearingPetition for RemovalJoint Findings and OrdersPersonnel FilePrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
1
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. ADJ2519091 (LAO 0824930) ADJ4160066 (LAO 0824931) ADJ188382 (LAO 0828971)
Regular
Aug 18, 1941

MARIA MARXUACH vs. WESTIN BONAVENTURE HOTEL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration in this case, upholding the judge's decision. Discovery closed by operation of law on September 12, 2007, and the applicant's attorneys failed to demonstrate due diligence in listing crucial medical reports as exhibits prior to this closure. Despite numerous continuances and attempts to amend the exhibit list, discovery was never formally reopened. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that the applicant did not establish why the exhibits could not have been presented with reasonable diligence before discovery closed.

Mandatory Settlement ConferencePre-trial conference statementdiscovery closureadministrative law judgePetition for Reconsiderationreopen discoverydue diligenceexhibition listWCJ reportWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,924 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