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

National Standard Insurance Co. v. Gayton

National Standard Insurance Company appealed a judgment awarding workers’ compensation benefits to Chris Gayton. The central issue was the admissibility of medical records containing diagnoses and opinions from treating physicians (Dr. A.R. Fernandez, Dr. Wainscott, and Dr. Corbin) when Gayton had not listed them as expert witnesses in discovery interrogatories. National Standard argued for exclusion based on Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b and 215, which require designation of expert witnesses. The court, however, distinguished between testifying experts and nontestifying medical experts whose opinions are part of authenticated medical records. It held that the discovery rules for testifying experts do not preclude the admission of such medical records. Consequently, the judgment awarding benefits to Gayton was affirmed.

Discovery ProceduresExpert TestimonyMedical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticePersonal Injury LitigationDisability BenefitsTreating Physician's RecordsHearsay Rule Exception
References
10
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

National Surety Corp. v. Rushing

The defendant appealed a jury verdict granting the plaintiff workers' compensation for total and permanent disability. The primary contention was the trial court's admission of an expert chiropractor witness not timely disclosed in pretrial interrogatories, violating Tex.R.Civ.P. 168. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the court's offer of a recess to depose the witness, which the defendant declined, and the defendant's failure to show prejudice. The court also affirmed the trial court's ruling on an objection during cross-examination of the chiropractor, noting the defendant's failure to lay a proper predicate for the introduction of an authoritative treatise. The defendant's remaining points of error were found to be without merit.

Discovery RulesExpert Witness TestimonyInterrogatoriesRule 168 ViolationWorkers' CompensationChiropractic EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedurePrejudice RequirementEvidentiary Foundation
References
14
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. ADJ7715497
Regular
Jan 17, 2015

SUDJAI SUKSAMRARN (Deceased) TUENJAI SUKSAMRARN (Widow) vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning an earlier decision that barred Edward Steinbrecher from testifying as an expert witness. The Appeals Board found that while Steinbrecher's prior representation of the applicant in a third-party action raised questions about his impartiality, this affected the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. The judge erred by disallowing testimony solely because the expert was not deemed "disinterested," as this is not a legal requirement for expert qualification. Therefore, Steinbrecher is now permitted to testify as an expert witness.

Petition for RemovalExpert Witness TestimonyDisinterested WitnessAdmissibilityWeight of EvidenceThird Party CreditIndustrial InjuryDeath BenefitQualified ExpertPrior Representation
References
2
Case No. 12-19-00265-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2020

Angel Rose Lee v. State

Angel Rose Lee appealed her conviction for sexual assault of a child, challenging the trial court's admission of expert witness testimony and hearsay evidence. Lee, who pleaded guilty to four counts and received concurrent ten-year sentences, argued that the expert opined on the victim's credibility and that forensic interview recordings were inadmissible hearsay. The Twelfth Court of Appeals District affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found no abuse of discretion in allowing the forensic interviewer to testify about observations of coaching behavior, rather than direct credibility, and upheld the admission of interview recordings as a basis for the expert's opinion and for impeachment, noting that appropriate limiting instructions were provided to the jury.

Sexual Assault of a ChildExpert Witness TestimonyHearsay EvidenceChild Victim CredibilityForensic InterviewWitness CoachingEvidentiary RulingsAbuse of Discretion StandardAppellate ProcedureTexas Criminal Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Sanchez

The case addresses the admissibility of expert psychological testimony regarding a child's truthfulness in a child abuse proceeding. During the examination of Dr. Jonathan Kurfirst, a psychologist testifying for the petitioner, the Assistant Corporation Counsel asked for his opinion on whether the child, Sondra, was telling the truth about sexual abuse allegations against her uncle and aunt. The respondents objected. Judge Jeffry H. Gallet sustained the objection, ruling that determining witness credibility is the sole responsibility of the court as the finder of fact. The court emphasized that while experts can testify about a party's ability to recall or report, they cannot directly vouch for a witness's truthfulness.

Child AbuseExpert TestimonyCredibility of WitnessPsychological EvaluationFamily CourtAdmissibility of EvidenceHearsay CorroborationDSM-III-RBorderline Personality DisorderSexual Molestation
References
33
Case No. 11-05-00062-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2007

City of Sugar Land, Texas v. Home and Hearth Sugarland, L.P.

The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's judgment in an eminent domain case. The City of Sugar Land sought to condemn a portion of Home and Hearth Sugarland, L.P.'s property for a regional detention pond and a drainage easement. After Special Commissioners awarded $552,651, Home and Hearth appealed to the County Court at Law, where a jury awarded $1,529,316.50 plus interest. The City appealed, challenging the admissibility and reliability of Home and Hearth's expert witness testimonies regarding property valuation and damages to the remainder, and the denial of its post-trial motions and requested jury instructions. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the admission of expert testimony or the refusal of jury instructions, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict.

Eminent DomainProperty ValuationExpert TestimonyCondemnationAppellate ReviewFair Market ValueRemainder DamagesHighest and Best UseComparable SalesCost Approach
References
25
Case No. W2001-01683-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2002

Patsy Mitchell v. Dr. James Ensor

Patsy Mitchell and her husband Steve Mitchell, appellants, brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. James Ensor, M.D., and Memphis Internal Medicine, P.L.L.C., appellees. The plaintiffs alleged Dr. Ensor negligently administered a Depo-Testosterone injection to Mrs. Mitchell for diminished libido without informed consent, resulting in virilizing side effects, including clitoral enlargement. The Circuit Court for Shelby County entered judgment on a jury verdict for the defendants. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on lack of informed consent and the admissibility of expert witness testimony. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions or the admission of expert testimony on alternate causes, and remanded the case.

Medical MalpracticeInformed ConsentTestosterone InjectionDepo-TestosteroneClitoral EnlargementVirilizationHormone Replacement TherapyJury InstructionsExpert Witness TestimonyMedical Causation
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 3,910 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