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

Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. v. Mills

The case concerns a dissenting opinion regarding a request by petitioners to the Department of Education for the business addresses of licensed veterinarians and veterinary technicians in Schenectady County. The Department maintains a database of nearly 800,000 licensed professionals but does not differentiate between residential and business addresses. While the majority concluded that disclosing business addresses would not violate personal privacy, the dissenting judge, Malone Jr., argues that disclosing residential addresses would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, emphasizing a heightened privacy concern for home addresses. The dissent criticizes the majority's reliance on an advisory opinion and proposes that affected licensees should be given notice and an opportunity to intervene to protect their privacy rights. The final order reversed the prior judgment and granted the petition, allowing the disclosure of addresses.

Licensing InformationProfessional ConductPrivacy RightsPublic RecordsFreedom of Information LawResidential AddressesBusiness AddressesVeterinariansVeterinary TechniciansSchenectady County
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 1982

United States v. Amalgamated Life Insurance

NIOSH, established by Congress to research occupational safety and health under OSHA, is studying the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde exposure in garment workers. As the insurer of these workers, Amalgamated Life Insurance Company holds relevant death records. NIOSH subpoenaed these records, but Amalgamated refused, arguing NIOSH lacked the power to subpoena third-party recordkeepers and that the records were protected by privacy and privilege. The court ruled that NIOSH's subpoena power extends beyond employers and employees under Section 669(b) of OSHA, encompassing all powers in Section 657. The court also found no protectable privacy right, as the employees were deceased and the right to privacy terminates upon death, and that the public interest in NIOSH's study outweighed any privacy claims. Furthermore, the court determined that federal law, not state law, governed privilege in this federal question case, and no federal privilege for death certificates exists. Therefore, the court granted NIOSH's motion to compel Amalgamated to comply with the subpoena.

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)Subpoena EnforcementThird-Party RecordkeepersCarcinogenicity StudyFormaldehyde ExposureGarment WorkersRight to Privacy (Deceased)Federal Question JurisdictionDeath Certificates
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Gregorio v. CBS, Inc.

Plaintiff Carl De Gregorio sued CBS after footage of him holding hands with a co-worker on Madison Avenue was broadcast for a news segment about romance, despite his explicit request to prevent its use. De Gregorio alleged invasion of privacy under the New York Civil Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and defamation. The court granted summary judgment to CBS, finding that the broadcast, filmed in a public place for a newsworthy topic, did not constitute an invasion of privacy or defamation. The decision emphasized that incidental use and the constitutional protection of freedom of the press precluded liability, even if the subject desired greater privacy.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawFreedom of the PressSummary JudgmentDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortNewsworthinessIncidental UsePublic Street
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutera v. Transportation Security Administration

Plaintiff Leonard Sutera, a Lead Transportation Security Officer, was terminated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) after two urine samples tested positive for marijuana. Sutera alleged that he inadvertently inhaled secondhand smoke and that his termination violated his due process and privacy rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. He sought reinstatement, back pay, and damages. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, determining that Sutera's constitutional claims were barred by sovereign immunity or lacked merit. The court found that the termination procedures were constitutionally adequate and dismissed claims under the Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

Due ProcessPrivacy ActAdministrative Procedure ActSovereign ImmunitySummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationDrug TestingFederal EmployeesConstitutional LawSecondhand Smoke
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'ANDREA v. Rafla-Demetrious

Mark A. D’Andrea sued Methodist Hospital of Brooklyn, alleging multiple claims including invasion of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51. The court had previously granted summary judgment on all claims except the invasion of privacy claim, which proceeded to trial. After D’Andrea presented his case, Methodist Hospital moved for judgment as a matter of law. The court granted this motion, ruling that the use of D’Andrea’s photograph in the hospital’s brochures was merely incidental to the document's main purpose and thus did not violate New York’s invasion of privacy statute. The court emphasized that the statute narrowly applies only to commercial use, and incidental uses are not actionable.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawCommercial Use of LikenessIncidental Use DoctrineFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)Summary JudgmentPromotional BrochureMedical Residency ProgramRight of PublicityTort Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. 12-cv-5944
Regular Panel Decision

Walia v. Holder

Sunil Walia, a Special Agent employed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sued the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), DHS, and the United States Attorneys’ Office, Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of the Privacy Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Walia claimed that DHS agents disclosed private information about his work performance deficiencies without his consent. The court consolidated this action with a prior case filed by Walia against DHS. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the Privacy Act claims and to dismiss the FTCA claims. The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that the disclosures were not based on information retrieved from a system of records but from independent knowledge, and even if they were, they fell under the 'routine use' exception of the Privacy Act. The court also dismissed the FTCA claims, stating that the United States is the only proper defendant, and the alleged actions did not constitute abuse of process or negligent infliction of emotional distress under New York law.

Privacy ActFederal Tort Claims ActSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissGovernment DisclosureRoutine Use ExceptionPersonnel RecordsProhibited Personnel PracticeCivil Service Reform ActNegligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. ADJ12349952
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

Dinh Tran vs. UL, LLC; Federal Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted in part a petition for removal filed by Dinh Tran, who sought to prevent the discovery of raw testing data from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to privacy concerns. While affirming the underlying Findings and Orders on its merits, the Board intervened to correct a clerical error and amend the orders regarding the confidentiality of medical records. The amended order strictly limits the reproduction and disclosure of raw testing materials and data, requiring their destruction after litigation and mandating defense counsel to ensure confidentiality and report any violations, thereby safeguarding the applicant's privacy rights.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorRaw Testing DataRight to PrivacyClerical ErrorsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWaiver of PrivilegeNarrowly Circumscribed DisclosureConfidentiality
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Oneida County Sheriff's Department

A female Deputy Sheriff (complainant) was denied promotion to sergeant in a male housing unit by the Oneida County Sheriff's Department (respondent). The State Division of Human Rights found unlawful discrimination, but the court annulled this determination. The court ruled that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the sergeant position due to male inmates' privacy during cellblock inspections, thus finding no unlawful discriminatory practice. A dissenting opinion argued that the respondent failed to meet the heavy burden of establishing sex as a necessary BFOQ, highlighting reasonable alternatives to accommodate privacy concerns and the adverse impact on female officers' promotional opportunities.

Bona Fide Occupational QualificationSex discriminationDeputy SheriffCorrection Officer SergeantInmate privacy rightsMale housing unitEmployment discriminationHuman Rights LawCivil service promotionOneida County Jail
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 122 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