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

Ledesma v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Rafael Ledesma appealed a worker's compensation award from the Texas Industrial Accident Board, leading to a jury trial in Polk County. The jury found against Ledesma regarding his injury, resulting in a take-nothing judgment. Ledesma presented four points of error concerning the exclusion of expert medical testimony, the exclusion of a witness's testimony on medication costs, a jury instruction on sole cause, and the factual sufficiency of the evidence. The court found no reversible error, ruling that procedural rules were not fully complied with for the expert testimony, the exclusion of cost testimony was harmless, the sole cause instruction was proper due to evidence of a prior injury, and the verdict was not manifestly unjust. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Worker's CompensationJury TrialAppealExcluded EvidenceExpert TestimonyMedical TestimonySole Cause InstructionFactual SufficiencyManifestly Unjust VerdictDeposition Testimony
References
5
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. 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

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. 06-02-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2002

Betty Manasco, as Workers' Compensation Beneficiary of the Estate of Jack Manasco v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

Betty Manasco, as the workers' compensation beneficiary of Jack Manasco's estate, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. The case concerned whether a head injury sustained by Jack Manasco in the course of his employment caused his subsequent malignant brain tumor, which led to his death. Manasco contested the trial court's decision to exclude the testimony of her expert witness, Dr. Richard Hamer, a neurologist, and the subsequent granting of summary judgment. The appellate court reviewed the exclusion of expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard, considering the reliability of scientific evidence and the Zülch/Manuelidis criteria for causation. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the medical literature did not establish a causal link through epidemiological or other studies, thereby deeming the exclusion of Dr. Hamer's testimony within the zone of reasonableness.

Workers' CompensationCausationExpert WitnessSummary JudgmentBrain TumorHead InjuryMedical EvidenceEpidemiologyReliability of EvidenceAbuse of Discretion
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. 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

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. 03-10-00134-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2012

Pifi Constancio, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Ruben Constancio v. Shannon Medical Center D/B/A Shannon West Texas Memorial Hospital

Pifi Constancio appealed the district court's decision to exclude her expert witness's causation opinion and grant a no-evidence summary judgment in her health care liability claim against Shannon Medical Center. Constancio alleged the hospital's nurses were negligent in concurrently administering medications and failing to use proper monitoring devices, which she claimed led to her husband, Ruben Constancio's, respiratory event, brain damage, and subsequent death. The Court of Appeals found that the exclusion of the expert's testimony was an abuse of discretion and that there was more than a scintilla of evidence to create a material fact issue regarding causation and wrongful death damages. Consequently, the court reversed both the order excluding the expert testimony and the order granting summary judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationSummary JudgmentRespiratory EventOversedationPulse OximetryAbuse of DiscretionHealth Care LiabilityWrongful Death
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manasco v. Insurance Co. of the State of Pennsylvania

Betty Manasco appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. Manasco, as a beneficiary of Jack Manasco, challenged a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission decision which found no causal link between Jack Manasco's head injury and his subsequent brain tumor and death. The trial court excluded testimony from Manasco's expert, Dr. Richard Hamer, a neurologist, who posited a causal link based on criteria from Zülch and Manuelidis. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's exclusion of Dr. Hamer's testimony, finding the medical literature did not support using the Zülch/Manuelidis criteria to establish causation, but rather to rule out non-causal instances. Consequently, the summary judgment against Manasco was upheld due to the lack of reliable expert testimony on causation.

Workers' CompensationCausationExpert TestimonySummary JudgmentBrain TumorHead InjuryMedical EvidenceReliability of EvidenceTexas Rules of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 6,644 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