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

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

EEOC v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

This opinion and order addresses motions to exclude expert testimony in a class action sex discrimination lawsuit. The court reviewed challenges to various experts, including those in statistics, sociology, and damages, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards. While motions to exclude statistical experts Dr. Farrell Bloch, Dr. William Wecker, Dr. Louis L. Wilde, and Sheldon Wishnick, and social science expert Dr. Barbara Gutek were largely denied, the court granted motions to exclude Roger Blanc (securities expert) and Dr. Ira T. Kay (compensation expert). Additionally, the court partially granted and denied motions for social science experts Dr. William Bielby, Dr. June O’Neill, and Dr. Christopher Winship, limiting specific aspects of their testimony. The court emphasized that many disputes regarding expert methodologies and opinions should be left for the jury to weigh during trial.

Expert TestimonyDaubert StandardFederal Rule of Evidence 702Sex DiscriminationClass Action LawsuitEmployment LawStatistical AnalysisSocial Science ResearchWorkplace BiasAdmissibility of Evidence
References
17
Case No. 91 Civ. 4544
Regular Panel Decision

Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. v. Fendi USA, Inc.

This opinion addresses defendants Fendi USA, Inc. and Fendi Stores, Inc.'s motion in limine to preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Dov Frishberg. Plaintiff Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc. sought to present Dr. Frishberg's economic analysis on the lost value of its business, attributing its closure to Fendi's alleged business slander and disparagement of goods. The court granted Fendi's motion, finding Dr. Frishberg's causation assumption irrational because the alleged defamatory statements occurred after Fashion Boutique's sales began to decline. Additionally, New York law requires specific proof of special damages, including identifying lost customers, which Fashion Boutique failed to provide given the limited dissemination of the alleged statements. Consequently, the expert testimony was deemed inadmissible as it would not assist the jury and was irrelevant to the claims under New York law.

Motion in LimineExpert Testimony ExclusionEconomic DamagesLost ProfitsBusiness SlanderDisparagement of GoodsSpecial DamagesCausation ProofNew York LawFederal Rules of Evidence 702
References
21
Case No. ADJ11197264
Regular
Apr 13, 2023

CECILIA MENDOZA vs. BERRYESSA CONTRACTING, INCORPORATED, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision awarding 25% permanent disability for industrial injuries to the applicant's left shoulder, neck, left lower arm, and upper back. The applicant contended the judge erred by not developing the medical-legal record regarding her vocational expert and by not awarding a higher disability rating based on vocational expert opinions. The Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinions unreliable due to misunderstandings of her physical restrictions and other inaccuracies. Therefore, the applicant failed to rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating of 25%.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationVocational ExpertPermanent Disability RatingAMA GuidesLabor Code Section 4660.1Scheduled Permanent Disability RatingWhole Person ImpairmentVocational RehabilitationSubstantial Evidence
References
4
Case No. ADJ635934
Regular
Sep 09, 2010

FRANCES LARUE vs. NORDMAN, CORMANY, HAIR & COMPTON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an administrative law judge's award finding permanent total disability and no apportionment for an applicant's back injury. The Board rescinded the award, finding the judge erred by relying on an orthopedist's opinion that failed to properly apportion disability to pre-existing scoliosis. The case is remanded for further proceedings to incorporate the apportionment opinion of the defendant's medical expert, who found 70% of the disability attributable to non-industrial scoliosis. A dissenting opinion argued that the defendant's medical expert's apportionment was also insufficient.

ApportionmentPermanent Total DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorOrthopedistDegenerative ScoliosisCausationLabor Code Section 4663Senate Bill 899Substantial EvidenceFindings and Award
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. ADJ2186466
Regular
Jun 26, 2017

AMADO URIAS vs. VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT

This case involves Amado Urias's petition for reconsideration of a Supplemental Findings and Award that determined his permanent disability at 54% after apportionment. Urias argued that his vocational expert's opinion on diminished earning capacity should have been prioritized over the medical opinions regarding his physical and psychiatric limitations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's decision. The Board found that the issue of psychiatric apportionment was previously adjudicated and that the vocational expert's opinion was not substantial evidence due to its reliance on subjective complaints over objective medical findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentVocational ExpertDr. Albert SimpkinsDr. StewartDr. WixenDr. AhmedCumulative Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC

Brenda Cornell sued 360 West 51st Street Corp. for personal injuries allegedly caused by indoor exposure to dampness and mold in her Manhattan apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding Cornell failed to prove general or specific causation under the Frye standard. The Appellate Division subsequently reversed this, suggesting Cornell's expert opinion had "some support" in scientific literature. However, the Court of Appeals, in this opinion, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Cornell failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court reiterated that scientific "association" does not equate to "causation" and found her expert's differential diagnosis insufficient due to lack of exposure quantification and inadequate ruling out of other causes. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was ultimately granted.

Mold ExposurePersonal InjuryCausationFrye StandardScientific EvidenceExpert Witness TestimonySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEnvironmental HealthDifferential Diagnosis
References
10
Case No. ADJ358084 (OAK 0320488)
Regular
Dec 19, 2008

Samuel Arledge vs. RGW Construction, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the applicant sustained 39% permanent disability. The applicant argued for 100% disability based on a vocational expert's opinion and Labor Code section 4662. The Board found the WCJ erred by not fully considering the vocational expert's opinion, specifically regarding the applicant's employability and earning capacity post-injury. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to re-evaluate the vocational expert's findings and determine the applicant's total disability status.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative Trauma InjuryPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 4662Qualified Medical EvaluatorImpairment RatingWPIFunctional Capacity EvaluationTransferable Skills
References
0
Case No. ADJ7399938 ADJ7068967
Regular
Jun 23, 2015

OLENA GARCIA vs. RESIDENCE INN, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further development of the record. The initial award found permanent total disability based on a vocational expert's opinion, but the Board found this opinion lacked substantial medical evidence. Specifically, the medical expert's supplemental report was not based on a current evaluation, and the vocational expert's conclusions, relying on that report, were therefore also flawed. The matter is remanded to allow for a current medical evaluation and reassessment of vocational rehabilitation and diminished earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityJoint Findings and AwardVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidenceScheduled RatingFunctional Capacity EvaluationAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionmentModified Work
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 19,314 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