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. 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. 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. 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. AP-77,029
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2015

Harris, James Jr.

This document is a transcript from a Capital Murder trial involving James Harris Jr. It primarily covers two main aspects: a Rule 705 examination for expert witness Dr. Raymond Singer and the individual voir dire of potential jurors (Ms. Woods, Ms. Cooper, Ms. Lee, and Ms. Vanscoy). During the expert witness hearing, the judge allows Dr. Singer to testify as a neuropsychologist and neurotoxicologist, despite the State's objections regarding his qualifications and past exclusions from testifying in other courts, while also allowing the State to cross-examine on those past exclusions. The bulk of the transcript details the extensive questioning of several potential jurors by both the prosecution and defense, delving into their views on the death penalty, presumptions of innocence, burden of proof, circumstantial evidence, voluntary intoxication, and their ability to follow specific legal instructions, including disregarding confessions and considering mitigating circumstances. The defense repeatedly challenges jurors for cause, citing biases towards the death penalty and an inability to consider mitigation or disregard confessions, but these challenges are largely denied by the court. The defense's request for additional peremptory strikes is also denied, leading to an objectionable juror being seated.

Capital MurderExpert Witness TestimonyNeurotoxicologyNeuropsychologyVoir DireJury SelectionDeath PenaltyMitigating CircumstancesFuture DangerousnessConfession Admissibility
References
39
Case No. E2007-01917-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2008

Billy Walls dba B.S. Walls Construction v. Jeffrey S. Conner

This case involves an appeal stemming from a construction dispute where Billy Walls dba B.S. Walls Construction (Contractor) sued Jeffrey S. Conner and Tresia Conner (Homeowners) for unpaid construction work, and Homeowners counterclaimed alleging substandard workmanship. After the general sessions court dismissed Contractor's claim and awarded Homeowners $15,000, Contractor appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court sanctioned Contractor for failing to comply with discovery requests regarding expert witnesses, precluding his experts from testifying, and upheld the qualification of Homeowners' expert. Subsequently, the circuit court dismissed Contractor's claims and entered a $55,000 judgment against him. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the imposition of discovery sanctions or the admission of expert testimony.

Appellate ReviewDiscovery SanctionsExpert Witness ExclusionAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court JudgmentAffirmed DecisionBreach of ContractSubstandard WorkmanshipContinuance DenialRule 26
References
25
Case No. 2-04-196-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2005

Eugene Carl Sanders v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Jan Patterson

Eugene Carl Sanders appealed a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of Home Depot USA, Inc. and Jan Patterson. Sanders, an employee, sued for negligence after suffering back injuries while lifting a lumber post, alleging unsafe workplace, insufficient assistance, and lack of training. The trial court struck the affidavit of Sanders's expert witness and granted summary judgment due to a lack of evidence for breach and causation. The appellate court affirmed, finding that Sanders failed to adequately brief the expert's qualifications and reliability, and that there was no competent medical or expert testimony linking the alleged negligence to his injuries. Consequently, Sanders did not raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the causation element of his negligence claim.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentCausationExpert Witness AffidavitWorkplace InjuryBack InjuriesNonsubscriber EmployerAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionMaterial Fact
References
21
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
Case No. 13-15-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2015

Maria Zamarripa, as Temporary Guardian of the Estates of R. F. R. and R. J. R., Minors, and Olga Flores, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Yolanda Iris Flores v. Bay Area Health Care Group, Ltd. D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation

This case involves an appeal by Maria Zamarripa and Olga Flores (Appellants) against Bay Area Health Care Group, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation (Appellees). The Appellants are challenging the trial court's orders that granted the Appellees' motions to dismiss. The core of the appeal centers on the qualifications of Nurse Spears as an expert witness and the sufficiency of expert reports regarding the standard of care, its breach, and causation in a medical malpractice claim involving Yolanda Iris Flores's injuries and death from placenta accreta and pre-term labor. Appellants argue that Nurse Spears is qualified, the expert reports adequately connect CCMC's alleged breach of care to the injuries, and alternatively, they are entitled to amend the reports. They pray for the reversal of the trial court's dismissal orders and a remand for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticePlacenta AccretaPre-term LaborMedical NegligenceStandard of CareCausationExpert Witness QualificationsHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Wrongful Death
References
16
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,113 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