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

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. Montefiore Hospital

Claimant, a mechanical engineer, sustained a work-related injury and received initial workers' compensation benefits. The employer later contested further disability, leading to a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) order for medical expert depositions, including one from the employer's expert, Robert Orlandi. Claimant's counsel objected to Orlandi's telephone deposition but failed to formally challenge the notice or raise a specific objection to the oath administration during the deposition. Orlandi's testimony, taken via telephone with the court reporter in New York and Orlandi in Connecticut, concluded that the claimant was no longer disabled. Both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board credited Orlandi's testimony, finding the claimant waived objections to the deposition's procedural irregularities. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's failure to make a timely and specific objection to the oath's administration during the deposition constituted a waiver, thus allowing the Board to properly rely on Orlandi's evidence.

Workers' CompensationMedical TestimonyDeposition ProcedureWaiver of ObjectionCPLROath AdministrationDisability AssessmentAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessProcedural Irregularities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1992

People v. Goldberg

This case concerns an appeal by a defendant convicted of arson in the second degree and criminal contempt in the second degree. The defendant challenged the admissibility of expert testimony from a Fire Marshal regarding the cause of the fire. The appellate court found the Fire Marshal's testimony to be improperly admitted as it essentially confirmed the prosecutor's theory of deliberate arson rather than providing factual observations. However, the court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the error was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence against the defendant, which included threats made to his wife, his presence at the scene, and multiple admissions of setting the fire. The trial court's jury charge on expert testimony, allowing the jury to reject the expert's opinion, further supported the affirmation.

ArsonCriminal ContemptExpert TestimonyAdmissibility of EvidenceHarmless ErrorOverwhelming EvidenceAppellate ReviewJury VerdictWitness TestimonyCriminal Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gans

This court opinion addresses whether a certified social worker can be qualified as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding a defendant's mental capacity to proceed and future competency. The defense sought to qualify Hillel Bodek, a certified social worker specializing in forensic clinical social work, as an expert witness for these purposes. The court meticulously reviewed the qualifications of clinical social workers, acknowledging their critical role in the diagnosis of mental disorders, including their involvement in the development of the DSM III. Despite statutory provisions in CPL article 730 outlining who may serve as psychiatric examiners, the court emphasized that other appropriately trained and experienced experts can also offer testimony on competence. Ultimately, the court ruled in the affirmative, concluding that certified social workers with demonstrated training and supervised clinical experience in diagnosis and capacity assessment are qualified to provide expert testimony on these crucial issues.

Expert Witness QualificationCertified Social WorkerMental Capacity AssessmentCompetency to ProceedForensic Mental HealthDiagnostic AssessmentPrognostic StatementsCriminal Procedure Law Article 730DSM IIINon-Medical Expert Testimony
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2001

People v. Higgins

The defendant was convicted of two counts of rape in the third degree, incest, seven counts of endangering the welfare of a child, and two counts of sodomy in the third degree involving his daughter and her 15-year-old friend. On appeal, the defendant argued that he was denied his right to confront his accuser due to the non-admission of the victim's psychological records, that the County Court erred in admitting evidence of prior uncharged crimes and testimony regarding a history of suicide in his family, and that the People's expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome was inadmissible. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the County Court's decisions regarding the social worker-client privilege under CPLR 4508, the admissibility of uncharged crimes to establish forcible compulsion and provide background, and the appropriate use of expert testimony to explain victim behavior.

Child sexual abuseRape in the third degreeIncestEndangering welfare of a childSodomy in the third degreeSocial worker privilegeCPLR 4508Uncharged crimesMolineuxForcible compulsion
References
16
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 81574[U]
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Santiago

This case addresses the admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness identification in a criminal assault trial. The defendant, Edwin Santiago, was identified by the victim and two other witnesses, but concerns arose regarding the reliability of these identifications due to factors like partial concealment, initial uncertainty, and potential post-event influences. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion to admit expert testimony, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding key expert testimony on eyewitness recognition memory and ordered a new trial, finding the corroborating evidence insufficient to bypass the need for such testimony.

Eyewitness IdentificationExpert Testimony AdmissibilityEyewitness Recognition MemoryMistaken IdentificationCriminal AssaultAppellate ReviewNew Trial OrderedCorroborating EvidenceFrye HearingConfidence-Accuracy Correlation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porcelli v. PMA Associates

Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband's death from respiratory failure, alleging it was an occupational disease from toxic chemical exposure during his 30+ years as a printer. A WCLJ initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board later precluded the claimant's medical expert's report and testimony due to untimely filing under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (d) (12). This preclusion led the Board to find no established causal relationship, closing the case without benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate support for precluding the expert's evidence due to procedural non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDeath BenefitsMedical ExpertReport PreclusionTimely FilingProcedural RuleCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gnoj v. City of New York

The plaintiff, a 65-year-old deceased kitchen worker, recovered a $135,000 verdict for personal injuries due to medical malpractice (failure to diagnose renal tuberculosis) at Bellevue Hospital. The defendant, City of New York, appealed citing untimely notice of claim, erroneous admission of expert testimony, and an excessive verdict. The court found the notice of claim's timeliness a jury question but deemed the verdict excessive and the admission of Dr. Wershub's testimony, an expert initially retained by the defendant, as prejudicial error. The judgment was reversed and a new trial directed.

Medical MalpracticeExpert Witness TestimonyAdmissibility of EvidenceTimeliness of Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawRenal TuberculosisJury Verdict ExcessiveNew TrialAppellate ReviewPretrial Settlement Conference
References
6
Case No. 69
Regular Panel Decision

Hewitt v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff Donovan Hewitt sued Metro-North Commuter Railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for shoulder and arm injuries attributed to unsafe work conditions as a coach cleaner. Metro-North responded with a Daubert motion to exclude Hewitt's ergonomics expert, Dr. Andres, alleging unreliability, and a motion for partial summary judgment, claiming Dr. Sasson's (treating orthopedic surgeon) testimony was dependent on Dr. Andres's. The Court, referencing varying precedents on ergonomics expert testimony, deemed Dr. Andres qualified and his opinions, based on sufficient facts and accepted methodologies, largely admissible. Consequently, Metro-North's motions to exclude expert testimonies and for partial summary judgment were denied, though Dr. Andres was prohibited from stating legal conclusions on causation or negligence.

FELAErgonomicsExpert TestimonyDaubert MotionSummary JudgmentWorkplace InjuryRailroad SafetyMedical CausationBioengineeringOrthopedic Surgery
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 3,685 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