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

Giles v. Gi Yi

The dissenting opinion by Justice Whalen challenges the majority's interpretation of 22 NYCRR 202.17, which mandates personal injury plaintiffs to secure an expert witness report on causation and provide it to the defense prior to the defendant's medical examination of the plaintiff. Whalen argues this requirement is an undue burden and is not explicitly outlined within the regulation's scope. The dissent emphasizes that 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) only requires disclosure of reports from 'medical providers who have previously treated or examined the party seeking recovery,' distinct from expert reports generated solely for litigation purposes. Furthermore, Justice Whalen asserts that expert disclosure is governed by CPLR 3101 (d), which does not necessitate such early disclosure, and finds that the Supreme Court's decision to compel was an abuse of discretion, concluding that Nero v Kendrick was wrongly decided.

Expert Witness DisclosureCausationMedical ExaminationPersonal InjuryCivil Procedure Law and Rules (CPLR)Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court (22 NYCRR)Dissenting OpinionJudicial DiscretionPreclusionLitigation Expenses
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1991

In re Lenny McN.

The Family Court in Bronx County issued an order on November 18, 1991, directing the disclosure of a social worker's entire casework file to an intervenor-respondent. This social worker was called as a witness by the law guardian for the infants. The appellate court unanimously reversed this order, finding the social worker's testimony regarding prior file use too equivocal to support a wholesale waiver of confidentiality and work product privileges. The court emphasized the protection against disclosure of mental impressions of a party's representative, classifying a social worker employed by a law guardian as such a representative. The case was remanded for a continuation of the dispositional hearing, with further discovery limited unless the law guardian seeks to elicit an adverse expert opinion from the social worker.

Family LawDisclosureConfidentiality PrivilegeWork Product ImmunitySocial Worker TestimonyChild CustodyFamily Court ProceedingDiscovery LimitationsAppellate ReviewWaiver of Privilege
References
2
Case No. 2020-03-0716
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2023

Taylor, Ariel v. Coca Cola Bottling Company

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer asserts the trial court erred in concluding it failed to comply with a scheduling order and in excluding its vocational expert. The employee suffered a compensable back injury and settled an initial claim. When his initial compensation period expired, he filed for additional disability benefits. A scheduling order required expert witness disclosure by May 5, 2023, but did not specify expert report exchange. The employer identified its vocational expert, Ms. Michelle Weiss, via email in March 2023 and provided her report in May, after the May 5 disclosure deadline but before other deadlines. The trial court excluded Ms. Weiss's testimony. The Appeals Board reversed, finding the term 'disclose' in the scheduling order ambiguous, especially given later deadlines for discovery and identification of testifying witnesses. The Board concluded the employer's email identifying the expert complied with the May 5 deadline.

vocational expertexpert witness disclosurescheduling orderdiscovery disputeevidence exclusionappellate reviewabuse of discretionambiguous court orderremandworkers' compensation law
References
5
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. 05-18-00188-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2019

Global Supply Chain Solutions, LLC v. Riverwood Solutions, Inc., and Lori Austin

This case involves a dispute between Global Supply Chain Solutions, LLC (Global Supply) and Riverwood Solutions, Inc. (Riverwood) and Lori Austin. After failed merger talks, Global Supply sued Riverwood for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference, also seeking injunctive relief against Austin. Key issues included whether Austin was an employee or independent contractor, if Riverwood breached non-solicitation clauses, and the application of the 'inevitable disclosure' doctrine for trade secrets. The trial court granted summary judgment for Riverwood and Austin and struck Global Supply's expert witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the summary judgment rulings or the striking of expert witnesses, and upheld the award of attorney's fees to Austin.

Breach of ContractTrade Secrets MisappropriationTortious InterferenceIndependent ContractorNon-Solicitation AgreementSummary JudgmentExpert Witness TestimonyInevitable Disclosure DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
30
Case No. 09-06-180 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2007

in Re Commitment of Michael Marks

Michael Marks appealed a civil commitment order issued under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator. Marks challenged the trial court's exclusion of his expert witnesses, Dr. Jason Dunham and psychotherapist Sara Smith, citing improper disclosure and the failure to hold a gatekeeper hearing for the State's expert, Dr. Michael Arambula. He also alleged improper closing arguments by the State. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Marks failed to timely disclose expert testimony, did not properly request a gatekeeper hearing, and waived objections to the closing arguments.

Civil CommitmentSexually Violent Predator ActExpert Witness ExclusionDiscovery RulesGatekeeper HearingClosing ArgumentAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureMental IllnessSchizoaffective Disorder
References
16
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Service Lloyds Insurance Co. v. Harbison

This worker's compensation case examines the timeliness of supplemental answers to interrogatories regarding expert witnesses under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Gary L. Harbison filed a worker's compensation claim, which Service Lloyds Insurance Company challenged. During discovery, Service Lloyds objected to an expert witness interrogatory, but the trial court overruled it, directing an answer within 30 days of trial. Service Lloyds designated an expert on February 28th for a March 19th trial. Harbison unsuccessfully sought to exclude the expert's testimony. The trial court admitted the expert testimony, leading to a judgment that Harbison take nothing. The court of appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's original judgment, holding that the supplemental answers were timely filed pursuant to Rule 168.6.

Expert TestimonyTimelinessInterrogatoriesTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureWorker's CompensationDiscoveryAppellate ReviewTrial CourtCourt of AppealsSupreme Court of Texas
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,430 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