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. 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 The original decisions are rescinded, and the matters are returned for further proceedings, allowing both parties time to obtain rebuttal and response reports from their respective DFEC experts.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. 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. 2022 NY Slip Op 06114
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2022

Fernandez v. Taping Expert, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sandy Joel Fana Fernandez, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which denied his motion to set aside a jury verdict. Fernandez was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while painting, claiming a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation against defendants Blima Ruchel Girls School and Keren Yad Veizer, Inc. The jury found the fall did not substantially cause his injuries, a finding supported by defense experts attributing injuries to degenerative causes. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the verdict was a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor LawJury VerdictAppellate ReviewCausationDegenerative InjuriesEvidence WeightMotion DenialProximate Cause
References
16
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00958
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of Parking Expert, Inc. v. City of New York

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed a determination by the New York City Department of Finance (DOF) that Parking Expert, Inc. violated agency rules. Petitioners were found to have submitted approximately 70 fabricated documents with intent to deceive, leading to a three-year suspension from appearing before DOF's Parking Violations Bureau. The Court held that DOF's determination was supported by substantial evidence, given the extensive nature and similar manner of the fabricated submissions, which refuted petitioners' claims of isolated errors. Furthermore, the Court found the suspension period appropriate and not shocking to the conscience, rejecting arguments of retroactive rule application, improper cross-examination limits, or denial of due process. Consequently, the petition brought under CPLR article 78 was denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Parking Violations BureauNew York City Department of FinanceDocument FabricationAdministrative SuspensionJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceIntent to DeceiveDue ProcessRetroactive Application
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07002 [188 AD3d 1524]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Matter of Walczak v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

Claimant Marian Walczak, an arborist, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that deemed his claim for occupational hearing loss untimely. Walczak worked for Asplundh Tree Expert Co. from 1998 to 2006 and filed his claim in 2017, listing the onset of hearing loss as December 27, 2006. The Board found the claim time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, asserting that Walczak knew or should have known of his hearing loss and its probable work-related cause by January 19, 2012, given his testimony and medical records. The Appellate Division affirmed, emphasizing that specialized medical knowledge is not required to trigger the 90-day limitations period under Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb, and deference is given to the Board's findings of fact and credibility assessments.

Occupational Hearing LossTime-Barred ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bbStatute of LimitationsDate of DisablementKnowledge of DiseaseMedical Diagnosis Not RequiredAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
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. ADJ3438054
Regular
Jul 08, 2013

CAROLYN WILLIAMS vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves Carolyn Williams' petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Williams incurred an industrial injury resulting in 57% permanent disability, calculated using the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS). Williams argued she rebutted the PDRS's diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) adjustment with vocational expert testimony. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding her expert's report less persuasive than the defendant's, as it focused on labor market access rather than DFEC and relied on inaccurate assumptions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleDiminished Future Earning CapacityOgilvie v. City and County of San FranciscoAgreed Medical ExaminerVocational ExpertRebuttalSubstantial EvidenceFindings Award and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. ADJ3385753 (SFO 0495153)
Regular
Mar 17, 2009

LORETTA L. ENNON vs. WALGREENS, permissibly self-insured

This case involves an admitted industrial injury to the applicant's back and hip. The primary dispute concerns the applicant's permanent disability rating, which the trial judge set at 41% based on a vocational expert's opinion on diminished future earning capacity (DFEC). The defendant appealed, arguing the rating was excessive and the expert's opinion improperly applied. The Appeals Board rescinded the original award, remanding the case to the trial level to apply recent en banc decisions regarding the rebuttal of the DFEC and AMA Guides portions of the permanent disability rating schedule. This remand allows for further proceedings to ensure correct application of these established legal standards.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC2005 ScheduleAMA GuidesVocational ExpertJeffrey MalmuthAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
4
Case No. ADJ2262922 (SRO 0041418)
Regular
Jul 07, 2011

DEBBIE LEVINE vs. STARBUCKS, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a permanent disability rating of 42%, arguing the vocational expert's assessment of diminished future earning capacity (DFEC) was rebutted and that Labor Code section 4662 should apply for total disability. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that the applicant failed to present substantial evidence to rebut the DFEC, as she never sought employment and her vocational expert's opinion was largely attributed to economic factors. Furthermore, the Board found no basis for applying Labor Code section 4662, as the applicant's alleged permanent total disability was not supported by persuasive medical or vocational evidence. The applicant's unsupported claim of zero earning capacity was contradicted by medical opinions.

Diminished Future Earning Capacity2005 PDRSOgilvie IOgilvie IIrebuttalLabor Code section 4662permanent total disabilityvocational expertsubstantial evidenceAME
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,246 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