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

Schairer v. Schairer

The wife filed a motion to disqualify the law firm of Sari Friedman, P.C. from representing her husband in their ongoing divorce proceedings, citing a conflict of interest. This conflict stemmed from Ms. Friedman's prior representation of the court-appointed custody forensic expert in his own divorce case in 1995. The husband cross-moved to disqualify the same forensic expert, alleging potential bias against police officers and Ms. Friedman's previous representation of the expert. The court found a clear appearance of a conflict of interest, as Ms. Friedman could not effectively cross-examine her former client, the expert, without potentially using privileged confidential information. Consequently, the court granted the wife's motion to disqualify Sari Friedman, P.C. and denied the husband's cross-motion, determining that any claims of bias against the expert could be addressed during trial.

DivorceAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestForensic ExpertCustodySpousal DisputeProfessional EthicsConfidentialityLegal RepresentationJudicial Opinion
References
10
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. ADJ7859239, ADJ7859246
Regular
Mar 10, 2014

BELINDA BURTON vs. SAN LUIS OBISPO CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant seeks reconsideration of two decisions regarding permanent disability ratings, arguing she was denied the opportunity to rebut the defense's Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) expert report. The Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant was deprived of due process by not being afforded adequate time to obtain a rebuttal report to the defense's late-disclosed DFEC expert report. The original decisions are rescinded, and the matters are returned for further proceedings, allowing both parties time to obtain rebuttal and response reports from their respective DFEC experts. Discovery will then be closed, and the parties can request trial.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC expert reportRebuttal reportDue processWCAB Rule 10507Mandatory Settlement ConferenceVocational expert evidencePermanent disability ratingReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
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. 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

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. ADJ9822757, ADJ9826854
Regular
May 05, 2017

MIREYA CASILLAS vs. CVS PHARMACY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied CVS Pharmacy's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that a single physician's opinion can constitute substantial evidence, even if conflicting. This decision upholds the WCJ's findings regarding industrial injuries, including dyspepsia, fibromyalgia, rheumatological arthritis, and psyche, as reported by various medical experts. The Board specifically noted that apportionment issues were not at the forefront of the current "body parts" determination.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATION DENIEDSUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCEWCJ REPORTAPPORTIONMENTPSYCHERHEUMATOID ARTHRITISFIBROMYALGIADYSPEPSIAGASTROINTESTINAL
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zivitz v. J & S Meat Corp.

The dissenting opinion, authored by Judge Casey and joined by Judge Weiss, argues for affirming the Workers' Compensation Board's decision. They contend that conflicting expert medical opinions regarding a decedent's work-related heart condition presented a factual dispute for the Board to resolve. Citing established legal precedents, the dissent emphasizes that an appellate court's scope of review does not permit substituting its own factual findings for those of the Board, particularly when expert medical evidence is contradictory. The opinion specifically notes that Dr. Martin Fox's testimony corroborated his report, indicating his opinion was not speculative.

Workers' CompensationDissenting OpinionMedical Expert OpinionConflicting EvidenceFactual IssueAppellate ReviewHeart ConditionDecedent's Death
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2009

Claim of Steadman v. Albany County

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to the children of a deceased mail courier. The decedent suffered a fatal heart attack while at work. The claimant, his former wife, argued for benefits, citing the presumption of compensability for unwitnessed deaths during employment. However, the employer provided expert medical testimony and reports indicating the death was due to a preexisting heart condition and not work-related. The Board upheld the denial, finding the employer overcame the presumption, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision, noting the presence of substantial evidence to support the Board's findings despite conflicting expert opinions.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsHeart AttackCausationPreexisting ConditionPresumption of CompensabilitySubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionCredibility IssueAppellate Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 6,665 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