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. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. ADJ6652445
Regular
Jun 14, 2010

BRUCE OBERG vs. ANDERSON, ROWE & BUCKLEY, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT, INC.

The defendant sought removal to depose two of the applicant's treating physicians, arguing their testimony was necessary to develop the record following the deposition of another treating physician. The Appeals Board granted the petition, amending the WCJ's order to allow these depositions. This decision acknowledges the seriousness of the applicant's claim and the need for a complete record, especially given prior discovery disputes. The matter was returned for trial, with a timeframe set for the depositions.

Petition for RemovalWCABQualified Medical EvaluatorAOE-COEDiscoveryDepositionTreating PhysicianInfectious Disease SpecialistPathologistCardiovascular System
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. 533089
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2021

Matter of Barden v. General Physicians PC

Claimant, a patient services representative, sought to amend her workers' compensation claim to include left shoulder aggravation after a work-related injury to her right shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed this request, finding that claimant failed to provide sufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her employment and the left shoulder condition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court noted that the claimant's treating physician opined the left shoulder pathology was largely preexisting and unrelated to the work injury, and other medical opinions either lacked sufficient weight or were based on inaccurate information, providing no basis to disturb the Board's finding.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausationMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionClaim AmendmentPatient Services Representative
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. ADJ6870715
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

JOSE VELEZ vs. PROGRESSIVE PRODUCE, ZURICH

The WCAB vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the lien claimant's petition because the appealed WCJ order was not a final, appealable decision. However, the Board granted removal due to the WCJ's procedural error in striking a medical report via an unauthorized "walk-through" order, which violated due process and WCAB rules. The case is returned to the trial level for proper proceedings on the defendant's discovery motion regarding the physician's deposition. The WCJ can then address issues like deposition fees and potential sanctions if the physician fails to comply.

WCABReconsiderationRemovalStrike Medical ReportDepositionFee DisputeDue ProcessWalk-through OrderWCJLien Claimant
References
4
Case No. 528344
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2020

Matter of DeLucia v. Greenbuild, LLC

Claimant Frank DeLucia filed a workers' compensation claim for various injuries attributed to repetitive motion while working as a drywall finisher. The claim was controverted by his employers and their workers' compensation carriers. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ordered depositions of claimant's treating physicians, but two physicians failed to appear despite multiple subpoenas and extensions. A third physician testified but could not establish causation. The WCLJ disallowed the claim, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, precluding the testimony and reports of the non-appearing physicians. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the carriers were not obligated to enforce the subpoenas through court action and that the claim was properly denied due to the absence of causation evidence.

Workers' Compensation ClaimRepetitive Motion InjuryDrywall FinisherCausationPhysician DepositionSubpoena EnforcementPreclusion of EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionMedical Evidence
References
6
Case No. ADJ3970584 (LAO 0836632)
Regular
Nov 04, 2011

RUSSELL NELSON vs. RENAISSANCE HOLLYWOOD HOTEL

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, reversing an earlier WCJ order that denied a second deposition of the applicant. This decision allows the defendant to depose the applicant and the appointed physician, Dr. Sadoff, regarding subsequent employment and industrial injury. The Board found good cause for the second deposition, as new information may be relevant to permanent disability and apportionment. The case was taken off calendar pending these depositions, but the request for reassignment of the WCJ was denied.

Petition for RemovalArmin M. SadoffM.D.Regular PhysicianSubsequent EmploymentSubsequent Industrial InjurySecond DepositionCompelling AttendanceCross-examinationPermanent Disability
References
4
Case No. CV-24-0993
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Daphyne Rodin

Claimant sustained a work-related left shoulder injury in 2014, leading to differing medical opinions on schedule loss of use (SLU) between her treating physician and the carrier's orthopedic consultant. A conciliation decision directed depositions, and claimant's counsel subpoenaed the carrier's consultant, who failed to appear. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board found no SLU, with the Board refusing to preclude the consultant's report due to claimant's counsel's failure to timely request an extension for the deposition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that claimant waived the right to cross-examine the consultant by not making reasonable efforts to reschedule or seek an extension for the deposition. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision not to preclude the medical report.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Medical Report PreclusionDeposition TestimonyCross-Examination RightsWaiver of RightAppellate DivisionBoard Decision AffirmationOrthopedic InjuryMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,272 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