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

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

Trumps v. Toastmaster, Inc.

Christel Trumps, a kitchen helper, sued Toastmaster, Inc. after receiving an electric shock from a griddle. She alleged negligence, breach of implied warranty, and strict liability due to a defective design. Toastmaster moved to exclude the plaintiff's expert witness, Michael Kaufmann, arguing his opinions were inadmissible under Daubert. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Haight, found Kaufmann unqualified as a mechanical engineer to testify on electrical engineering issues and deemed his methodology inadequate as he did not test his hypothesis. Consequently, the court granted Toastmaster's motions to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment, dismissing Trumps' complaint with prejudice due to a lack of evidence on design defect and causation.

Daubert ChallengeExpert Witness AdmissibilityElectrical Shock InjuryProduct DefectGriddle MalfunctionMechanical Engineering ExpertElectrical Engineering ExpertSummary Judgment GrantedFederal Rules of EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Monell v. Scooter Store, Ltd.

The plaintiff, a 93-year-old woman with limited mobility, commenced an action against The Scooter Store Ltd. and Pride Mobility Products Corporation after her three-wheeled Go-Go Ultra X Scooter allegedly tipped over due to a design defect and inadequate warnings. She claimed negligence, strict tort liability, and breach of warranties. The defendants sought to exclude the plaintiff's expert witness and moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion to exclude the expert, finding his testimony sufficiently reliable. It also denied summary judgment on the claims of defective design, failure to warn, and negligence, finding genuine issues of material fact. However, summary judgment was granted to the defendants regarding the breach of express warranty claims, which the plaintiff had abandoned.

Products LiabilityDefective DesignFailure to WarnSummary Judgment MotionExpert Witness AdmissibilityMobility Scooter AccidentNegligence ClaimsImplied Warranty ClaimsFederal Civil ProcedureDistrict Court Decision
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Excelsior Designs, Inc. v. Sheres

Excelsior Designs, Inc., a New York-based furniture distributor, sued Gregory Sheres, an Arizona resident and owner of Sheres Studio, Inc., for defamation, tortious interference with contractual relations, and unfair competition. Excelsior alleged that Sheres sent letters to its customers, accusing Excelsior of infringing on his furniture designs. Sheres filed a motion to transfer venue from the Eastern District of New York to the District of Arizona. The court denied the motion, finding that neither the convenience of witnesses nor access to evidence clearly favored either venue. The court also emphasized the plaintiff's choice of forum, concluding that Sheres had not met the burden to justify a transfer.

Venue TransferDefamationTortious InterferenceUnfair CompetitionIntellectual Property RightsMotion to TransferDistrict CourtCivil ProcedureForum Non ConveniensInterlocutory Motion
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Argonaut Insurance v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co.

A fire occurred on January 1, 2010, at a garage owned by the Town of Dannemora Highway Department, involving a Samsung Loader. Unnamed insurance companies, subrogated to the Town, sued Volvo Construction Equipment (manufacturer of the Samsung Loader) for negligent design, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn. Both parties moved to exclude expert testimonies, which the court largely denied, stating issues raised pertain to weight, not admissibility. Defendants also sought summary judgment, which was granted for failure to warn and manufacturing defect claims (as plaintiffs withdrew them), but denied for design defect and negligence claims, allowing plaintiffs' expert to testify on alternative designs. The court emphasized the liberal standard for expert qualification and that disputes about credentials go to weight, not admissibility.

Expert TestimonyDaubert StandardProduct LiabilityDesign DefectNegligenceSummary JudgmentFire InvestigationNFPA 921SubrogationVolvo Construction Equipment
References
48
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. 01 Civ. 2254
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2004

Roane v. Greenwich Swim Committee

This tort action stems from injuries sustained by Stephen Roane during a one-mile swim event in Long Island Sound and a subsequent rescue attempt. Plaintiffs, Stephen and Margot Roane, sued the event organizer Greenwich Swim Committee (GSC), boat owner Walter McDermott, and boat manufacturer S2 Yachts, Inc. The court applied general maritime law. It granted S2's motions to preclude plaintiffs' expert witness and for summary judgment, finding the expert's methodology unreliable regarding design defects. However, the court denied GSC and McDermott's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike their affirmative defenses of waiver and assumption of risk, deeming the waiver unenforceable and assumption of risk inapplicable in admiralty law. The case will proceed to trial against GSC and McDermott.

Maritime LawAdmiralty JurisdictionSummary JudgmentExpert Witness TestimonyDaubert StandardRule 702NegligenceProduct LiabilityWaiver of LiabilityAssumption of Risk
References
37
Case No. ADJ3533537 (VNO 0556925)
Regular
Apr 14, 2016

Richard Varela vs. Morley Group, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an award of $2,737.50 for an expert witness's trial testimony, clarifying that such expenses are permissible costs under Labor Code section 5811. The Board held that the expert's testimony regarding the necessity of home health care services was relevant to the lien claimants' burden of proof, even though the primary injury claim was ultimately unsuccessful. This decision distinguishes between medical-legal expenses and trial witness costs, allowing for the latter when reasonably incurred for essential elements of a lien claim. The Board found the expert's testimony necessary for the lien claimants to establish all elements of their case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings of Fact and OrderLabor Code section 5811lien claimantshome health care servicesexpert testimonytrial testimonyreasonableness and necessityinjury AOE/COEmedical-legal expenses
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 1989

Vermette v. Utica-Oswego Motor Express

The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that the claimant sustained a compensable injury and awarded workers' compensation benefits. This decision was appealed. The appellate court reviewed the Board's finding, which was supported by the testimony of the claimant’s expert medical witness. This expert concluded that the neurological damage to the claimant’s brain resulted from head trauma due to a fall and a subsequent craniotomy. Despite conflicting testimony from the employer’s workers’ compensation carrier’s expert medical witness, the Board resolved these conflicts. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that its finding of a causally related disability was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryHead TraumaCraniotomyNeurological DamageMedical TestimonyCausally Related DisabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,412 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