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

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. 2022 NY Slip Op 06114
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2022

Fernandez v. Taping Expert, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sandy Joel Fana Fernandez, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which denied his motion to set aside a jury verdict. Fernandez was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while painting, claiming a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation against defendants Blima Ruchel Girls School and Keren Yad Veizer, Inc. The jury found the fall did not substantially cause his injuries, a finding supported by defense experts attributing injuries to degenerative causes. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the verdict was a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor LawJury VerdictAppellate ReviewCausationDegenerative InjuriesEvidence WeightMotion DenialProximate Cause
References
16
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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00958
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of Parking Expert, Inc. v. City of New York

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed a determination by the New York City Department of Finance (DOF) that Parking Expert, Inc. violated agency rules. Petitioners were found to have submitted approximately 70 fabricated documents with intent to deceive, leading to a three-year suspension from appearing before DOF's Parking Violations Bureau. The Court held that DOF's determination was supported by substantial evidence, given the extensive nature and similar manner of the fabricated submissions, which refuted petitioners' claims of isolated errors. Furthermore, the Court found the suspension period appropriate and not shocking to the conscience, rejecting arguments of retroactive rule application, improper cross-examination limits, or denial of due process. Consequently, the petition brought under CPLR article 78 was denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Parking Violations BureauNew York City Department of FinanceDocument FabricationAdministrative SuspensionJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceIntent to DeceiveDue ProcessRetroactive Application
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07002 [188 AD3d 1524]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Matter of Walczak v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

Claimant Marian Walczak, an arborist, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that deemed his claim for occupational hearing loss untimely. Walczak worked for Asplundh Tree Expert Co. from 1998 to 2006 and filed his claim in 2017, listing the onset of hearing loss as December 27, 2006. The Board found the claim time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, asserting that Walczak knew or should have known of his hearing loss and its probable work-related cause by January 19, 2012, given his testimony and medical records. The Appellate Division affirmed, emphasizing that specialized medical knowledge is not required to trigger the 90-day limitations period under Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb, and deference is given to the Board's findings of fact and credibility assessments.

Occupational Hearing LossTime-Barred ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bbStatute of LimitationsDate of DisablementKnowledge of DiseaseMedical Diagnosis Not RequiredAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. 10-15-00255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2015

Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC, and Michael C. Evans v. Jonathan Sistrunk

This document is a Docketing Statement (Civil) filed in the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas, on August 12, 2015. It pertains to an appeal initiated by Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC and Michael C. Evans against Jonathan Sistrunk. The statement outlines details of a default judgment signed on May 8, 2015, which awarded $14,000.00 in actual damages, $40,000.00 in punitive damages, and $19,000.00 in attorney's fees. The appellants intend to challenge the judgment on grounds including failure to serve process, and the record's support for actual, exemplary, and attorney's fees, as well as post-judgment interest. The document also includes information regarding legal representation, the trial court (170th Judicial District Court, McLennan County, Texas), and a recommendation for mediation.

Default JudgmentAppealService of ProcessDamagesAttorney's FeesPost-Judgment InterestTexas LawCivil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJurisdiction
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schairer v. Schairer

The wife filed a motion to disqualify the law firm of Sari Friedman, P.C. from representing her husband in their ongoing divorce proceedings, citing a conflict of interest. This conflict stemmed from Ms. Friedman's prior representation of the court-appointed custody forensic expert in his own divorce case in 1995. The husband cross-moved to disqualify the same forensic expert, alleging potential bias against police officers and Ms. Friedman's previous representation of the expert. The court found a clear appearance of a conflict of interest, as Ms. Friedman could not effectively cross-examine her former client, the expert, without potentially using privileged confidential information. Consequently, the court granted the wife's motion to disqualify Sari Friedman, P.C. and denied the husband's cross-motion, determining that any claims of bias against the expert could be addressed during trial.

DivorceAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestForensic ExpertCustodySpousal DisputeProfessional EthicsConfidentialityLegal RepresentationJudicial Opinion
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,493 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