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

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

National Standard Insurance Co. v. Gayton

National Standard Insurance Company appealed a judgment awarding workers’ compensation benefits to Chris Gayton. The central issue was the admissibility of medical records containing diagnoses and opinions from treating physicians (Dr. A.R. Fernandez, Dr. Wainscott, and Dr. Corbin) when Gayton had not listed them as expert witnesses in discovery interrogatories. National Standard argued for exclusion based on Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b and 215, which require designation of expert witnesses. The court, however, distinguished between testifying experts and nontestifying medical experts whose opinions are part of authenticated medical records. It held that the discovery rules for testifying experts do not preclude the admission of such medical records. Consequently, the judgment awarding benefits to Gayton was affirmed.

Discovery ProceduresExpert TestimonyMedical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticePersonal Injury LitigationDisability BenefitsTreating Physician's RecordsHearsay Rule Exception
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp.

This is a toxic tort case brought by fifty-three individuals and related claimants against defendants engaged in uranium mining and milling activities in Karnes County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that exposure to ionizing radiation from uranium ore and its decay products caused their various cancers. The Court considered Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Malin Dollinger, the Plaintiffs’ sole expert on specific causation. Dr. Dollinger's methodology, based on differential diagnosis and the linear no-threshold hypothesis, was found unreliable for determining specific causation. Consequently, the Court granted Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Dollinger's testimony and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, dismissing the case with prejudice due to Plaintiffs' lack of admissible proof on specific causation.

Toxic TortUranium MiningRadiation ExposureCancer CausationExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardSummary JudgmentSpecific CausationGeneral CausationEpidemiology
References
46
Case No. ADJ7715497
Regular
Jan 17, 2015

SUDJAI SUKSAMRARN (Deceased) TUENJAI SUKSAMRARN (Widow) vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning an earlier decision that barred Edward Steinbrecher from testifying as an expert witness. The Appeals Board found that while Steinbrecher's prior representation of the applicant in a third-party action raised questions about his impartiality, this affected the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. The judge erred by disallowing testimony solely because the expert was not deemed "disinterested," as this is not a legal requirement for expert qualification. Therefore, Steinbrecher is now permitted to testify as an expert witness.

Petition for RemovalExpert Witness TestimonyDisinterested WitnessAdmissibilityWeight of EvidenceThird Party CreditIndustrial InjuryDeath BenefitQualified ExpertPrior Representation
References
2
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. 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

National Surety Corp. v. Rushing

The defendant appealed a jury verdict granting the plaintiff workers' compensation for total and permanent disability. The primary contention was the trial court's admission of an expert chiropractor witness not timely disclosed in pretrial interrogatories, violating Tex.R.Civ.P. 168. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the court's offer of a recess to depose the witness, which the defendant declined, and the defendant's failure to show prejudice. The court also affirmed the trial court's ruling on an objection during cross-examination of the chiropractor, noting the defendant's failure to lay a proper predicate for the introduction of an authoritative treatise. The defendant's remaining points of error were found to be without merit.

Discovery RulesExpert Witness TestimonyInterrogatoriesRule 168 ViolationWorkers' CompensationChiropractic EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedurePrejudice RequirementEvidentiary Foundation
References
14
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. 709-95
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 1996

Schutz v. State

The appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of his six-year-old daughter. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, but the appellant petitioned for discretionary review, arguing the trial court erroneously admitted expert testimony regarding the child complainant's credibility concerning manipulation and fantasy. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that such expert testimony constitutes an impermissible direct comment on the truthfulness of specific allegations, thereby invading the province of the jury. The court distinguished between admissible general testimony on a witness's capacity/disposition for truthfulness and inadmissible expert conclusions on specific allegations.

Aggravated Sexual AssaultChild Witness CredibilityExpert Testimony AdmissibilityManipulationFantasyTruthfulness of WitnessRules of EvidenceAppellate ReviewReversal of ConvictionChild Abuse
References
113
Showing 1-10 of 6,064 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