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

Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp.

This is a toxic tort case brought by fifty-three individuals and related claimants against defendants engaged in uranium mining and milling activities in Karnes County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that exposure to ionizing radiation from uranium ore and its decay products caused their various cancers. The Court considered Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Malin Dollinger, the Plaintiffs’ sole expert on specific causation. Dr. Dollinger's methodology, based on differential diagnosis and the linear no-threshold hypothesis, was found unreliable for determining specific causation. Consequently, the Court granted Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Dollinger's testimony and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, dismissing the case with prejudice due to Plaintiffs' lack of admissible proof on specific causation.

Toxic TortUranium MiningRadiation ExposureCancer CausationExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardSummary JudgmentSpecific CausationGeneral CausationEpidemiology
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Washington v. Montefiore Hospital

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. 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. 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. 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
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Evan Y.

The Family Court of Tioga County found a child, born in 1994, to be abused by his father (respondent) based on the child's out-of-court statements of being repeatedly fondled and exhibited troubling behaviors such as sexual acting out, nightmares, bed-wetting, and suicidal tendencies. Petitioner initiated this child abuse proceeding, and the respondent, who had a prior neglect adjudication, chose not to testify at the fact-finding hearing. Expert witnesses, clinical social workers Mary Bado and Sarah Walsh, provided corroborating testimony that the child's behaviors were consistent with sexual abuse. Family Court credited this expert testimony and found sufficient corroboration for the child's statements. The respondent appealed the finding of sexual abuse, but the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, noting the permissible inference against the non-testifying respondent and the ample corroborative evidence from the expert witnesses.

child abusesexual abuseFamily Court Act Article 10corroborationexpert testimonyout-of-court statementschild witnessesappellate reviewparental rightssexual acting out
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trubell v. Patten

O. R. Trubell, a manufacturer, brought a legal malpractice suit against his former attorney, J. W. Patten, after Trubell was forced to pay $35,000 in excess of his insurance policy limits to settle a personal injury lawsuit. Patten had been retained by Trubell's insurer, Aetna, to defend Trubell in the original personal injury case. Trubell alleged Patten's negligence included failing to know policy limits, failing to respond to settlement offers, and not adequately advising him. The trial court issued a directed verdict for Patten, excluding expert testimony from Trubell's proposed witness, Joe Steelman, due to Trubell's failure to supplement interrogatory answers regarding expert witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in excluding Steelman's expert testimony, which was crucial for Trubell's negligence claim.

Legal MalpracticeExpert WitnessDiscovery Rule ViolationDirected VerdictAbuse of DiscretionAttorney NegligenceSettlement NegotiationsRule 168 T.R.C.P.Duty to SupplementTexas Civil Procedure
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 5,303 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