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

Jenkins v. General Motors Corp.

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. ADJ4609262
Regular
Mar 13, 2009

TERRY KING vs. GREAT PACIFIC, THE NEWS GROUP, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves a truck driver who sustained a knee injury. The original award found 25% permanent disability, which the defendant argued was unsupported and that the applicant's expert witness fees were improperly awarded. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the legal framework for rebutting the 2005 permanent disability rating schedule. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original award and returned the case for further proceedings to apply guidance from recent en banc decisions on rebutting impairment and diminished future earning capacity ratings. The issue of expert witness fees was deferred for later consideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityDiminished Future Earning CapacityExpert Witness FeesAgreed Medical ExaminerAMA GuidesAlmaraz
References
2
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
May 28, 1997

Schomber v. Schomber

This case concerns a postjudgment application for a change of custody which was ultimately withdrawn without prejudice. The remaining issues for the court were the award and apportionment of counsel and expert fees. The court reviewed the affidavits of legal services and net worth statements from both the plaintiff and defendant, noting the defendant's superior earning capacity. It also addressed the fees for the Law Guardian and a forensic expert, whose qualifications were challenged by the plaintiff. The court affirmed the expert's role and fees, stating that licensure is not a prerequisite for court-appointed experts in this context. Ultimately, the court ordered the apportionment of legal, Law Guardian, and forensic expert fees between the parties, with the defendant responsible for 80% and the plaintiff for 20% of the expert and Law Guardian fees, based on their respective financial circumstances.

custody disputechild supportlegal feesexpert witness feesLaw Guardian feespostjudgment applicationmatrimonial lawfee apportionmentfinancial disclosureSuffolk Academy of Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ4659248 (MON 0335156)
Regular
May 19, 2011

Joseph Nollet vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENTOF CORRECTIONS, Legally Uninsured and Adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over reimbursement for an applicant's expert witness fees in a workers' compensation claim. The defendant sought reconsideration of an order awarding these fees. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the award because the applicant failed to establish the expert's qualifications or present their report or testimony into evidence. The Board found that without this foundational proof, the administrative law judge could not properly exercise discretion regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the costs.

WCABJoseph NolletDepartment of CorrectionsState Compensation Insurance FundADJ4659248ReconsiderationExpert CostsLabor Code Section 5811Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2005

Rainone v. Potter

Joseph L. Rainone, a pro se plaintiff, sued his employer, the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service, for gender discrimination and retaliation. A jury found in favor of the plaintiff on the retaliation claim, awarding him $11,166 for salary differential and $175,000 for emotional distress. The defendant moved for a new trial, arguing the emotional distress award was excessive. The court, comparing the award to similar employment discrimination cases, found the $175,000 for emotional distress to be excessive and offered a remittitur, reducing the award to $50,000, with a new trial on damages if not accepted. The plaintiff's motion for costs was partially granted for filing fees, transcript costs, printing fees, and expert witness fees, totaling $5,302.59, but denied for attorney's fees due to his pro se status.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimEmotional Distress DamagesRemittiturJury Verdict ReviewExcessive DamagesPro Se LitigantLitigation CostsUSPSSecond Circuit Precedent
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Misuraca v. Perales

This case involves appeals by the State and local Commissioners from two Supreme Court orders in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The initial proceeding challenged a denial of a shelter allowance to an unnamed petitioner and was settled by stipulation. The Supreme Court had awarded attorney's fees to the petitioner as a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1983. The appeals court dismissed the appeal concerning the denial of reargument, noting no appeal lies from such an order. Crucially, the court reversed the order awarding attorney's fees, ruling that the petitioner's federal due process claim, concerning the failure to produce a witness, was 'wholly without merit.' The court found the dispute involved a legal conclusion from undisputed facts, not a factual issue requiring cross-examination under Goldberg v Kelly, thus not entitling the petitioner to attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988.

Attorney's FeesCPLR Article 78Due ProcessShelter AllowancePrevailing PartyFederal Constitutional ClaimState ClaimsStipulation of Settlement42 USC § 198342 USC § 1988
References
9
Case No. ADJ648677
Regular
Mar 22, 2011

GUSTAVO LEON vs. SOUTH WEST MATERIAL HANDLING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant's request for reconsideration after a WCJ disallowed their expert witness fee. The Appeals Board found the WCJ erred in disallowing the lien solely because the vocational expert's report did not definitively alter the permanent disability rating. Citing *Costa v. Hardy Diagnostic*, the Board held that expert costs are reimbursable if reasonable and necessary when incurred, and potentially capable of affecting the outcome, even if unsuccessful or deemed inadmissible. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the lien claim's reasonableness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantVocational ExpertDiminished Future Earning CapacityPermanent Disability RatingCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5811Medical-Legal CostsReasonable and Necessary Costs
References
4
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,505 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