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
Feb 08, 1994

People v. France

This is a combined decision addressing motions to vacate homicide convictions in six separate cases. The defendants argued that the prosecutor failed to disclose dictation audiotapes made by the New York City Medical Examiner, which they claimed constituted 'Rosario' material. The court denied the motions, ruling that the Medical Examiner's Office is an independent agency, and therefore, the audiotapes were not under the control of the District Attorney and not 'Rosario' material. The decision further clarifies that CPL article 240 provides for pretrial discovery of written reports but not dictation tapes, unless they contain exculpatory material. The court emphasized the Medical Examiner's role as an independent expert, distinct from 'event' or law enforcement witnesses, and concluded that their dictation tapes are not 'statements' within the 'Rosario' jurisprudence.

Rosario materialDiscovery rulesCPL 440.10 motionHomicide convictionMedical Examiner audiotapeAutopsy reportProsecutorial dutyDuplicative equivalentIndependent agencyCPL Article 240
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. Siara Management, Inc.

Claimant, a custodian, sustained two work-related injuries in 2000, and his workers' compensation benefits were approved. In 2003, the employer's workers' compensation carrier requested an independent medical examination (IME) by Charles Totero. Claimant moved to preclude Totero's report, arguing it was improperly mailed by UMC Medical Consultants, EC., an IME services company, instead of Totero himself, in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 137. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied the motion, finding UMC, as Totero's direct employer and a registered IME company, was authorized to perform administrative services like mailing reports under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (e) (1). The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that the submission substantially complied with statutory requirements.

IME Report AdmissibilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 137Procedural ComplianceMedical Report MailingIME Services CompanyAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationIndependent Medical Examiner12 NYCRR 300.2
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2004

Claim of Stoudenmyre v. Loretto Rest Nursing Home

Claimant, a personal care aide, sustained a foot injury and her workers' compensation claim was established. Subsequently, an independent medical examination (IME) report was requested to address permanency. Claimant moved to preclude the IME report, arguing it was improperly mailed by Brookside Consultants, Inc., an IME services company, instead of the physician, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 137. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the motion, which the Board affirmed. This Court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that properly registered IME services companies are authorized to perform administrative functions like mailing reports, thereby substantially complying with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, as established in Matter of Clark v Siara Mgt., Inc.

IME reportmailing proceduresWorkers' Compensation Lawadministrative functionspermanency of injuryindependent medical examinationmedical reportsreport submissionappellate reviewBoard affirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giles v. Gi Yi

The dissenting opinion by Justice Whalen challenges the majority's interpretation of 22 NYCRR 202.17, which mandates personal injury plaintiffs to secure an expert witness report on causation and provide it to the defense prior to the defendant's medical examination of the plaintiff. Whalen argues this requirement is an undue burden and is not explicitly outlined within the regulation's scope. The dissent emphasizes that 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) only requires disclosure of reports from 'medical providers who have previously treated or examined the party seeking recovery,' distinct from expert reports generated solely for litigation purposes. Furthermore, Justice Whalen asserts that expert disclosure is governed by CPLR 3101 (d), which does not necessitate such early disclosure, and finds that the Supreme Court's decision to compel was an abuse of discretion, concluding that Nero v Kendrick was wrongly decided.

Expert Witness DisclosureCausationMedical ExaminationPersonal InjuryCivil Procedure Law and Rules (CPLR)Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court (22 NYCRR)Dissenting OpinionJudicial DiscretionPreclusionLitigation Expenses
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

Mitchell v. SUNY Upstate Medical University

Plaintiff Robbie Mitchell sued SUNY Upstate Medical Center for alleged Title VII violations, including race discrimination and retaliation, after experiencing a series of adverse employment actions. These actions included reassignment, disciplinary notices (NODs), a mandatory medical examination, a formal counseling memorandum, a verbal dispute, and eventual termination. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for most claims and that their actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The court granted summary judgment in favor of SUNY Upstate Medical Center, concluding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of discrimination or that retaliation was the but-for cause of the challenged employment actions, and consequently, the case was closed.

Title VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkWorkplace ConductDisciplinary ActionPaid Administrative Leave
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burger v. Bladt

The infant plaintiff suffered personal injuries resulting in serious learning disabilities and neurological problems following a collision. The defendant moved to compel additional medical examinations by a psychologist, psychiatrist, and a teacher of the neurologically handicapped, as well as a parent intake evaluation by a psychiatric social worker, after the plaintiffs refused to submit to more than a single examination. The Supreme Court partially denied this motion, deeming it overly burdensome. On appeal, the order was modified to grant the defendant's request for an examination by Annella Stevens, a teacher of the neurologically handicapped, and an interview by a psychiatric social worker to obtain the child's developmental history, affirming the order as modified.

Personal InjuryMedical ExaminationDiscoveryAppellate ProcedureInfant PlaintiffNeurological ProblemsLearning DisabilitiesSupreme CourtPre-Trial DiscoveryCourt Order Modification
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

Defayette v. Verizon

The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in January 2003 and was initially awarded workers' compensation benefits. However, in October 2004, an independent medical examiner concluded the claimant had no disability, leading the self-insured employer to suspend benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, finding the claimant's pain unsubstantiated by objective findings. The claimant's later attempts to reopen the case with new medical reports were denied by a different WCLJ and upheld by the Board, which found that all relevant issues had been fully litigated. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial, ruling that the additional evidence was either previously available or failed to demonstrate a material change in condition, and that the Board was within its discretion to credit the independent medical examiner's opinion over conflicting medical evidence.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryDisability BenefitsMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationCase ReopeningBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewConflicting Medical OpinionsObjective Findings
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trezza v. New York State & Local Retirement Systems

Petitioner, a sanitation worker in Nassau County, sought disability retirement benefits after an automobile accident in 2002. His application was denied by the Comptroller, a decision based on conflicting medical evidence. While his treating physician opined he was incapacitated, an independent medical examiner found no impairment preventing him from working. The Supreme Court transferred the CPLR article 78 proceeding, and the appellate court confirmed the Comptroller's determination, finding substantial evidence in the independent medical examiner's opinion. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsSanitation WorkerAutomobile AccidentMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating PhysicianComptroller's DeterminationCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceNassau County
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 9,913 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