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. ADJ2211265 (AHM 0083473) ADJ4072860 (AHM 0083472)
Regular
May 06, 2011

Darlyn Piper vs. DANKA OFFICE IMAGING, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns applicant Darlyn Piper's appeal of a permanent disability award for injuries sustained while employed by Danka Office Imaging. Applicant argues for total permanent disability, challenging the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Marinow's apportionment and deposition testimony. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the WCJ failed to address the admissibility of Dr. Marinow's deposition testimony. The case is therefore remanded for the WCJ to determine the deposition's admissibility and weight before issuing a new decision.

Darlyn PiperDanka Office ImagingZurich North AmericaLiberty Mutual Insurance Co.permanent disabilitytotal permanent disabilityvocational rehabilitationDr. Marinowapportionmentnon-industrial factors
References
0
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

Rogacki v. Acands, Inc.

The judgment was unanimously affirmed without costs. The court ruled that testimony from unavailable witnesses in prior proceedings, where the decedent was not a party and lacked cross-examination opportunity, was inadmissible. Conversely, evidence of successful workers' compensation claims by asbestos plant workers from the 1940s to 1960s for asbestos-related pulmonary diseases, along with incidence data, was properly admitted. This evidence was crucial for assessing defendant Celotex Corporation's knowledge of asbestos risks and the reasonableness of its failure to warn end-users. Additionally, Dr. Mancuso’s 1983 deposition testimony was appropriately admitted as the defendant was represented during that deposition. The defendant's remaining arguments were found to be without merit.

Asbestos ExposurePulmonary DiseaseFailure to WarnAdmissibility of EvidencePrior TestimonyWorkers' Compensation ClaimsCorporate KnowledgeCross-Examination RightsAppellate ReviewProduct Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York Hospital

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, filed an action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against The New York Hospital, its President Dr. David Skinner, and Assistant Director of Nursing Mr. Jody Sklar, alleging unlawful employment termination due to an alcoholism relapse. The plaintiff objected to a protective order preventing Dr. Skinner's deposition, while defendants sought to dismiss claims against individual defendants. The court granted dismissal against Mr. Sklar but denied it for Dr. Skinner, finding that individuals responsible for discriminatory decisions can be liable under the Act, especially those in positions to accept federal funds. Consequently, the protective order against deposing Dr. Skinner was set aside.

Rehabilitation Actemployment discriminationdisability rightsalcoholismindividual liabilitycorporate responsibilityprotective orderdiscoverymotion to dismiss
References
9
Case No. ADJ6465894
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

HERMELINDA YBARRA vs. SAN BENITO HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This denial was based on the Judge's report and the defendant's failure to fairly state all material facts, violating WCAB Rule 10842(a). Specifically, the defendant misrepresented Dr. Graubard's findings regarding the applicant's bilateral knee injury and the basis for his opinion. The Board found that Dr. Graubard's reports and deposition testimony supported the injury, and that his opinion was not solely reliant on Dr. Trieb's superseded findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedWCJ Report AdoptedWCAB Rule 10842(a)Misstatement of FactsDr. Graubard ReportCumulative InjuryBilateral KneesInjury Date March 201995
References
0
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
Case No. ADJ6662275
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

DARRIN BEAN vs. CITY OF CHULA VISTA

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for a skin cancer injury. The applicant contests the testimony of an independent medical expert, Dr. Brigham, who offered an opinion on his impairment rating that differed from the agreed medical evaluator's (AME). The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, ruling that Dr. Brigham's testimony was inadmissible as he was neither an AME nor a treating physician and his testimony was not in rebuttal to formal rating instructions. Consequently, Dr. Brigham's testimony was stricken, the prior order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings based solely on admissible medical evidence.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentPermanent Disability RatingClass 1 ImpairmentClass 2 ImpairmentClass 3 ImpairmentMedical Evidence AdmissibilityRebuttal Testimony
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2001

Pretter v. Metro North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff Frank A. Pretter Sr., along with fourteen other Metro North employees, alleged they developed carpal tunnel syndrome and other disabilities due to Metro North's negligence in requiring repetitive tasks at the Harmon Shop. To support their claims, plaintiffs offered the expert testimony of ergonomist Dr. Robert Andres. Defendant Metro North moved to strike Dr. Andres' testimony, arguing it lacked scientific certainty. After a two-day evidentiary Daubert hearing, the Court granted Metro North's motion, ruling Dr. Andres' opinions were too vague, based on imprecise methodology, and inadequate investigation, thus inadmissible. Consequently, Dr. Andres' proffered testimony was entirely stricken and will not be permitted at trial.

ErgonomicsExpert WitnessDaubert HearingAdmissibility of EvidenceCarpal Tunnel SyndromeOccupational InjuriesNegligence ClaimWorkplace SafetyRepetitive Motion InjuriesScientific Methodology
References
18
Case No. 00 Civ. 4763
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Information Systems, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union Number 3

The plaintiffs, CWA-affiliated electrical contractors led by U.S. Information Systems, Inc., filed an antitrust lawsuit against IBEW Local Union Number 3 and affiliated electrical contractors. Plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy to exclude them from the telecommunications installation market, causing higher prices and lost profits, in violation of the Sherman and Donnelly Acts. The defendants moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' economic expert, Dr. Frederick C. Dunbar, under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, arguing his methods and data were unreliable. Magistrate Judge Francis found that while Dr. Dunbar's qualifications and methodology were largely sound, his analysis concerning liability and causation relied on a biased data sample. Consequently, the court partially granted the defendants' motion, ruling that Dr. Dunbar's testimony based on the skewed data sample for liability and causation is inadmissible. However, his testimony not dependent on this biased data, including his damages calculations, remains admissible, and plaintiffs were instructed to submit a revised expert report if they intend to offer such testimony.

AntitrustMonopoly LeveragingExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardReliability of EvidenceStatistical AnalysisData BiasMarket PowerTelecommunications IndustryElectrical Contracting
References
41
Case No. ADJ1443437 LAO 0869505 ADJ2073136 LAO 0859208 ADJ2254995 LAO 0869595 ADJ4428071 LAO 0869514 ADJ4561708 LAO 0859207
Regular
Oct 25, 2018

JACQUELINE STELLY vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, finding that the WCJ erred in quashing the deposition of Dr. Majcher. The Board determined that the defendant violated a stipulation by seeking a trial date from a different judge without notice. Additionally, the defendant failed to comply with procedural requirements for quashing a deposition notice and the applicant's due process rights necessitate the opportunity to depose Dr. Majcher. Therefore, the WCJ's order was rescinded, and the matter was returned for further proceedings, including the deposition of Dr. Majcher.

Petition for RemovalQuash DepositionStipulation ViolationDue ProcessEx ParteMeet and ConferWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorSupplemental ReportDiscovery
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,062 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