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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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. ADJ2203036 (SAC 0198508) ADJ4156707 (SAC 0224575)
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case concerns a dispute over the deposition of Dr. Michael Kasman, who began an evaluation of the applicant but never completed it. The applicant sought to quash the deposition notice, citing due process, privacy, attorney work product, and the fact that Dr. Kasman was withdrawn as their expert. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal solely to limit the scope of the deposition. The Board amended the discovery order to clarify that Dr. Kasman can only be deposed as a percipient witness regarding his attempted examination, not as a medical expert.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalInterim Discovery OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceMotion to QuashDepositionQualified Medical EvaluatorAttorney Work Product PrivilegePercipient WitnessCumulative Injury
References
0
Case No. 2019-06-1523
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2020

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This scheduling order from the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims outlines key deadlines for the case of John Williams v. All-Star Personnel, Inc., and Benchmark Ins. Co. The contested issues include medical, temporary, and permanent disability benefits, as well as compensability. Discovery is set to conclude with lay witness depositions by January 31, 2021, and expert witness depositions by March 12, 2021. A post-discovery mediation is scheduled for March 30, 2021. The compensation hearing is set for April 15, 2021, in Nashville, Tennessee. The order also mandates the submission of stipulations, witness and exhibit lists, and prehearing briefs before the compensation hearing. Failure to comply with these deadlines may result in referral to the Penalty/Compliance Division as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-118.

SchedulingDiscoveryMediationCompensation HearingDeadlinesNon-complianceWorkers' CompensationEmployee BenefitsEmployer LiabilityInsurer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The defendant, General Motors Corporation, moved the court for an order granting costs and expert witness fees related to discovery, specifically for depositions of their expert witnesses by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel, Clements & Ducharme, P.C., disclaimed responsibility, arguing that the plaintiffs themselves were solely liable for these costs. The court analyzed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) and the attorney-client relationship, noting that plaintiffs' attorneys had previously advanced fees, indicating an intent to incur liabilities jointly with their clients. The court agreed with the defendant's policy argument to prevent discovery abuses. Consequently, the court ordered both the plaintiffs and their counsel, Clements & Ducharme, P.C., to be held jointly and severally liable for the $5,350.25 in discovery costs and fees, entering judgment in favor of General Motors Corporation.

Discovery CostsExpert Witness FeesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C)Attorney LiabilityClient LiabilityJoint and Several LiabilityRetainer AgreementAgency RelationshipPrincipal-AgentLegal Fees
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

In a trademark infringement case, defendants moved to disqualify plaintiffs' litigation counsel, Tal Benschar, Esq., from serving as a 30(b)(6) deposition witness, citing New York Disciplinary Rule 5-102 which addresses the advocate-witness rule. The Court denied the defendants' motion, allowing Mr. Benschar to testify. The Court acknowledged the potential for confusion and conflicting loyalties when a lawyer acts as both a witness and an advocate, but found these dangers less likely in the pre-trial context. It also considered that Mr. Benschar was in the best position to provide the requested information, having supervised the investigation. However, the Court deferred its ruling on whether Mr. Benschar’s testimony would disqualify him from subsequently serving as trial counsel, noting that another attorney would be primary trial counsel.

Trademark InfringementDiscoveryFed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)Attorney DisqualificationAdvocate-Witness RuleEthical RulesDeposition TestimonyPre-Trial ProcedureNew York LawCounsel Representation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1999

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Patricia Arnold sued Dow Chemical Company, alleging her late husband, Kenneth Arnold, developed multiple myeloma from TCE exposure at Grumman Aerospace Plant. Dow moved to exclude the testimonies of four expert witnesses, arguing their scientific methodologies were unreliable under Daubert. Judge Spatt denied Dow's motion, ruling the experts' reasoning was sufficiently valid for jury consideration and that any inconsistencies or weaknesses could be addressed through cross-examination. Additionally, the Court denied the plaintiff's appeal regarding a Magistrate Judge's order that required her to pay for expert depositions due to extensive discovery delays.

TCE ExposureMultiple MyelomaExpert Witness TestimonyDaubert StandardFederal Rules of EvidenceIndustrial HygieneEpidemiologyToxicologyHematologyCausation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This Memorandum and Order addresses a discovery dispute concerning the depositions of three non-party witnesses (Timothy McMullan, James Cook, and Timothy McFadden) in a class action lawsuit against Genworth in the Eastern District of New York. Defendants Genworth argued that a prior injunction from a parallel Connecticut case prohibited these witnesses from testifying. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Brown, found that the Connecticut injunction does not, by its express terms, bar deposition testimony in this matter, especially given existing confidentiality orders. Therefore, the court overruled Genworth's objections and directed the TJT witnesses to proceed with their depositions, allowing a 30-day period for Genworth to appeal the decision or identify specific objections.

Deposition TestimonyInjunction ScopeTrade SecretsConfidential InformationClass ActionMagistrate Judge RulingProtective OrderFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureFraudulent SchemeMisrepresentations
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,683 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