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

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 81574[U]
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Santiago

This case addresses the admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness identification in a criminal assault trial. The defendant, Edwin Santiago, was identified by the victim and two other witnesses, but concerns arose regarding the reliability of these identifications due to factors like partial concealment, initial uncertainty, and potential post-event influences. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion to admit expert testimony, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding key expert testimony on eyewitness recognition memory and ordered a new trial, finding the corroborating evidence insufficient to bypass the need for such testimony.

Eyewitness IdentificationExpert Testimony AdmissibilityEyewitness Recognition MemoryMistaken IdentificationCriminal AssaultAppellate ReviewNew Trial OrderedCorroborating EvidenceFrye HearingConfidence-Accuracy Correlation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Drake

The dissenting opinion in People v. Paris Drake argues that the trial court made two significant errors. Firstly, the court improperly instructed the jury that expert testimony on eyewitness identification, provided by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, could not be used to discredit or accredit eyewitness accounts. This instruction, according to the dissent, effectively negated the defense's ability to challenge the reliability of crucial eyewitness testimony. Secondly, the dissent contends that the trial court erred by refusing an in camera review of a key eyewitness's psychiatric records, which could have shed light on her perception given her medication for anxiety. These errors, the dissent concludes, were prejudicial and warrant a reversal of the conviction for first-degree assault and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

Eyewitness IdentificationExpert Witness TestimonyJury InstructionsRight to Confront WitnessesPsychiatric Records ConfidentialitySixth AmendmentCriminal AssaultCriminal Possession of WeaponMemory RetentionPrejudicial Error
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Craig

The defendant appealed his conviction for robbery in the second degree, challenging the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges, the denial of eyewitness testimony for a lineup identification, and the allowance of cross-examination regarding prior convictions. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence of guilt. It concluded that the prosecutor provided race-neutral reasons for excusing prospective jurors and that the denial of eyewitness testimony was within discretion. Furthermore, the court determined that the cross-examination on prior convictions was permissible for credibility and the sentence was not excessive given the defendant's criminal record.

robberysecond degreejury verdictperemptory challengesracial discriminationBatson challengejury selectionlineup identificationprior convictionscredibility
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Green

On January 11, 1990, Sun Ok Kim was assaulted, robbed, and subjected to an attempted burglary. Two weeks later, she identified Kenneth Green in a police lineup. Green subsequently filed a motion to suppress the identification testimony, citing both suggestive lineup procedures and the scientific unreliability of eyewitness identification. The court considered expert testimony regarding the factors affecting eyewitness accuracy, including witness confidence and stress levels, but found no evidence of suggestiveness in the police's conduct. Ultimately, the court denied Green's motion in its entirety, ruling that the scientific arguments related to the weight of the identification evidence, not its admissibility, which remains a question for the jury.

Eyewitness IdentificationSuppression MotionDue ProcessSuggestive LineupScientific ReliabilityYerkes-Dodson LawCriminal ProcedureAdmissibility of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceHuman Perception
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McDowell

The defendant, Glenn R. McDowell, facing charges including second-degree murder, moved to suppress the testimony of an eyewitness, Johnnie T. Williams, who had been hypnotized. The defense argued that the hypnosis violated McDowell's due process rights by potentially distorting the witness's memory and hindering cross-examination. Justice William J. Burke reviewed the hypnotic session and expert testimony, assessing whether established safeguards for such procedures were met. The court found substantial compliance with these safeguards and determined that the hypnosis did not irreversibly alter the witness's memory or constitute an improper identification procedure. Consequently, the motion to suppress the witness's statements and potential trial testimony was denied, with the court concluding that hypnosis generally impacts credibility rather than admissibility.

Hypnosis AdmissibilityWitness MemoryDue ProcessCriminal Procedure LawMotion to SuppressCross-Examination RightsEyewitness TestimonySuggestibilityLegal SafeguardsNew York Penal Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 2,558 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