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. 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. 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. 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

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. E2012-01475-CCA-R3-PC
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2013

Richard Trehern v. State of Tennessee

Richard Trehern appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He claimed counsel failed to communicate adequately, attack his wife's credibility, advise on release eligibility, explain Momon consequences, and secure an expert witness for the shaken baby syndrome defense. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the post-conviction court's decision, finding no deficient performance by trial counsel or resulting prejudice to Trehern. The court noted that counsel's decisions were strategic and based on thorough investigation, including consultation with medical experts who concurred with the shaken baby syndrome diagnosis, and that Trehern himself declined to attack his ex-wife's credibility.

Post-Conviction ReliefIneffective Assistance of CounselShaken Baby SyndromeChild Abuse InvestigationExpert TestimonyWitness CredibilityTrial Counsel StrategyCriminal AppealMedical Evidence ReviewDue Process Rights
References
20
Case No. 709-95
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 1996

Schutz v. State

The appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of his six-year-old daughter. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, but the appellant petitioned for discretionary review, arguing the trial court erroneously admitted expert testimony regarding the child complainant's credibility concerning manipulation and fantasy. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that such expert testimony constitutes an impermissible direct comment on the truthfulness of specific allegations, thereby invading the province of the jury. The court distinguished between admissible general testimony on a witness's capacity/disposition for truthfulness and inadmissible expert conclusions on specific allegations.

Aggravated Sexual AssaultChild Witness CredibilityExpert Testimony AdmissibilityManipulationFantasyTruthfulness of WitnessRules of EvidenceAppellate ReviewReversal of ConvictionChild Abuse
References
113
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McDowell

The defendant, Glenn R. McDowell, facing charges including second-degree murder, moved to suppress the testimony of an eyewitness, Johnnie T. Williams, who had been hypnotized. The defense argued that the hypnosis violated McDowell's due process rights by potentially distorting the witness's memory and hindering cross-examination. Justice William J. Burke reviewed the hypnotic session and expert testimony, assessing whether established safeguards for such procedures were met. The court found substantial compliance with these safeguards and determined that the hypnosis did not irreversibly alter the witness's memory or constitute an improper identification procedure. Consequently, the motion to suppress the witness's statements and potential trial testimony was denied, with the court concluding that hypnosis generally impacts credibility rather than admissibility.

Hypnosis AdmissibilityWitness MemoryDue ProcessCriminal Procedure LawMotion to SuppressCross-Examination RightsEyewitness TestimonySuggestibilityLegal SafeguardsNew York Penal Law
References
1
Case No. ADJ7016413
Regular
Jun 24, 2010

KEITH TRIGG vs. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to obtain medical records. The Board found no abuse of discretion in the WCJ's decision to submit the case for decision on the existing record, emphasizing that parties presented witnesses and appeared satisfied with their evidence. The Board reasoned that the WCJ observed witness demeanor and credibility, and no reason existed to believe a determination could not be made on the presented testimony. The case was returned to the WCJ for submission on the current record.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJIndustrial InjuryMedical RecordsTrial StrategyDiscoveryLabor Code Section 5502(c)(3)Labor Code Section 5701Labor Code Section 5906
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,279 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