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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2005

Sassower-Berlin v. Berlin

This case details an appeal by the Law Guardian for the children and the father from a Family Court order in Nassau County, entered December 12, 2005. The underlying proceeding aimed to modify a 2001 divorce judgment that had terminated the mother’s visitation rights. Appellants sought to vacate orders directing forensic examinations of the father and children, and to summarily dismiss the modification proceeding. The appellate court dismissed the appeal concerning one child as academic. It found the order for the father's examination erroneous but affirmed the discretion to order children's evaluations. However, in exercising its own discretion, the court granted the motion to vacate the forensic examinations for the minor children due to their opposition and prior trauma. The court denied the motion to summarily dismiss the mother's petition, allowing it to proceed to a hearing.

Child visitationDivorce judgment modificationForensic examinationsMental health evaluationAppellate reviewFamily Court ActChildren's welfareJudicial discretionLaw GuardianChildren's wishes
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Morton

Michael Wayne Morton, convicted of his wife's murder in 1987, sought post-conviction forensic DNA testing of various pieces of evidence under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court partially denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of testing for evidence related to a separate murder and for fingerprint evidence, finding these did not meet the statutory requirements of being "secured in relation to the offense" or containing "biological material." However, the court reversed the denial for a blood-stained bandana recovered near the crime scene. The court concluded that if DNA testing on the bandana yielded exculpatory results (Christine's blood and a third party's DNA), there is a greater than 50% likelihood that Morton would not have been convicted, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the bandana.

forensic DNA testingmurder convictionappealcriminal procedureexculpatory evidenceblood-stained bandanaunidentified fingerprintscircumstantial evidencetime of deathunknown intruder theory
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Albert F. v. Stone

Albert F., a patient at Kings Park Psychiatric Center, filed a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to compel the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health and the Director of the Bureau of Forensic Services to apply for an order authorizing his unescorted furloughs. Albert F. argued that his treatment team, the Hospital Forensic Committee, and the Bureau of Forensic Services had all approved his furlough application based on clinical suitability and public safety. The respondents contended that the application was discretionary and that the Commissioner retained final authority. The court, presided over by Alan D. Oshrin, J., denied the respondents' motion to dismiss and the petitioner's motion to amend the petition. The court clarified that while the initial decision to apply for a furlough order is discretionary, if the Director of Forensic Services determines that two specific conditions (clinical warrant and public safety) are met, then the application becomes mandatory. The court ordered the petitioner to submit certified and updated documentary evidence to support their claims within 45 and 90 days, stating that if the conditions are met, the court will direct the Director to make the application.

MandamusCPLR Article 78Furlough OrderPsychiatric Patient RightsMental Hygiene LawDiscretionary vs Mandatory ActsStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawBureau of Forensic ServicesKings Park Psychiatric Center
References
15
Case No. ADJ8264840
Regular
May 30, 2018

GABRIELA ARROYO vs. STANFORD UNIVERSITY, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior decision that denied a psychiatric Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The WCAB found that the administrative law judge improperly decided the issue of good cause to reopen, rather than the sole issue presented for trial: entitlement to a PQME in psychiatry. Granting removal was necessary due to potential prejudice and due process concerns. The Board substituted its own order, granting the applicant's request for a PQME in psychiatry.

PQMEPetition for RemovalWCABCompensable Consequence InjuryNew and Further InjuryDue ProcessGood Cause to ReopenStipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical Treatment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buntin v. Guardian Life Insurance

The defendant insurer appealed an order denying its motion for disinterment of cremated remains for forensic examination. The insurer sought to verify the identity of the deceased, Floyd B. Ashlock, after uncovering several discrepancies. These included inconsistencies in medical records regarding an appendectomy, conflicting statements about the deceased's drinking habits, and challenges to the identity of the body by the deceased's daughter. Additionally, the plaintiff, the beneficiary, exhibited suspicious behavior. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, found that these "special, unusual and unanticipated circumstances" warranted further discovery, reversing the lower court's decision and granting the defendant's motion to exhume the remains for forensic examination.

DisintermentForensic ExaminationLife Insurance PolicyAccidental Death InsuranceCremated RemainsMedical Record DiscrepanciesIdentity VerificationAppellate ReviewDiscovery MotionDental Records
References
3
Case No. ADJ14784661
Regular
Aug 01, 2025

Jeremy Vietmeier vs. Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, American Home Assurance Company

Applicant Jeremy Vietmeier sought reconsideration of a WCJ's May 8, 2025 Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) which found good cause for an additional neurology QME panel but denied one in psychiatry. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration but granted it as a petition for removal. They rescinded the original F&O and substituted new findings, determining that good cause exists for additional QME panels in both neurology and psychiatry. The Board also provided guidance regarding the admissibility of a psychiatric report from David Kauss, Ph.D., disagreeing with a dissenting commissioner on its immediate inadmissibility, noting the issue was not yet ripe for a ruling.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical DirectorDivision of Workers' Compensation (DWC)AdmissibilityPsychiatric ReportGood CauseFinal Order
References
17
Case No. ADJ10310553, ADJ10310557
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

JOSE ESPINOSA vs. SECCOMBE HOMES, INC., dba NORTH STAR CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's denial of a psychiatry QME panel, finding the order interlocutory. However, the Board granted the petition for removal, recognizing that denying a psychiatric QME panel irreparably harmed the applicant's ability to conduct necessary medical-legal discovery regarding his psyche claim. The Board amended the Joint Findings and Award to find good cause for an additional QME panel in psychiatry and granted the applicant's request. This decision allows for proper evaluation of the applicant's psychiatric complaints and potential permanent impairment rating, especially given Labor Code §4660.1's nuances for post-2013 injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoint Findings and AwardQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)good causepsychiatric injurypermanent impairment ratingLabor Code §4660.1
References
0
Case No. 12-19-00265-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2020

Angel Rose Lee v. State

Angel Rose Lee appealed her conviction for sexual assault of a child, challenging the trial court's admission of expert witness testimony and hearsay evidence. Lee, who pleaded guilty to four counts and received concurrent ten-year sentences, argued that the expert opined on the victim's credibility and that forensic interview recordings were inadmissible hearsay. The Twelfth Court of Appeals District affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found no abuse of discretion in allowing the forensic interviewer to testify about observations of coaching behavior, rather than direct credibility, and upheld the admission of interview recordings as a basis for the expert's opinion and for impeachment, noting that appropriate limiting instructions were provided to the jury.

Sexual Assault of a ChildExpert Witness TestimonyHearsay EvidenceChild Victim CredibilityForensic InterviewWitness CoachingEvidentiary RulingsAbuse of Discretion StandardAppellate ProcedureTexas Criminal Law
References
34
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
Showing 1-10 of 65 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