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. E2014-00005-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2015

Michael Morgan v. Superior Catering Services

This case involves an appeal concerning an age discrimination claim. The plaintiff, Michael Morgan, initially sued Superior Catering Services. Later, Connelly Dean Cofer, Lynda Cofer, and Dean's Coffee Service were added as defendants. The key issues revolved around insufficient service of process on the newly added defendants and the admissibility of hearsay testimony. The trial court initially granted a new trial due to the improper admission of hearsay statements, but then reversed itself, reinstating the jury's verdict based on other evidence. The appellate court found that the service of process was indeed insufficient and that the hearsay error was not harmless, influencing the jury's decision. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Age DiscriminationImproper Service of ProcessHearsay EvidenceWaiverApparent AuthorityHarmless ErrorJury VerdictRemandAppellate ReviewProcedural Error
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

All Saints Episcopal Hospital v. M.S.

M.S. and T.S. sued All Saints Episcopal Hospital, alleging their daughter, K.S., was sexually abused by an employee, D.R., at the hospital's child care center. The jury sided with the appellees, awarding $1,100,000. All Saints appealed, contending the trial court wrongly admitted hearsay evidence, specifically a Department of Human Resources (DHR) report and a summary letter that contained unverified multiple hearsay regarding other alleged abuse instances by D.R. The appellate court concurred, ruling that the objected-to portions of the DHR report and the summary letter constituted inadmissible multiple hearsay, and their erroneous admission likely led to an improper judgment. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Sexual abuseChild careHearsay evidencePublic records exceptionMultiple hearsayEvidentiary errorReversalRemandTrial procedureAppellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Previl

This case addresses the sufficiency of an accusatory instrument charging defendant Anthony Previl, operating L’Eternal Qui est Dieu Restaurant, with violating Workers’ Compensation Law sections 50 and 52 for failing to secure insurance for employee Admarie Baskin. Previl sought to dismiss the complaint, contending it was an unconverted misdemeanor complaint based on hearsay. The People argued that a certified New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) decision, attached to the instrument, satisfied the non-hearsay requirement of CPL 100.40. The court ruled that certified state department records, including WCB decisions, are admissible under CPLR 2307 and 4518 (c) as prima facie evidence of their contents, regardless of whether hearsay was considered by the WCB Judge. Consequently, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was denied, affirming the legal sufficiency of the accusatory instrument.

Workers' Compensation LawAccusatory InstrumentMisdemeanorHearsay EvidenceMotion to DismissCPL 100.40CPLR 4518Certified RecordsBusiness Records ExceptionUninsured Employer
References
11
Case No. 19-1032
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2021

in the Matter of the Marriage of Angelina Sandoval and Angel Sandoval and in the Interest of A.M.S., a Child

This case involves an appeal of a no-answer default judgment in a divorce proceeding between Angelina Sandoval and Angel Sandoval. Angel, the husband, sought a new trial, asserting equitable grounds under the Craddock standard and arguing improper service of process. The trial court initially denied his motion, sustaining a hearsay objection to his affidavit, a decision affirmed by the court of appeals which cited formal defects in the affidavit. However, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred by rejecting Angel's affidavit as hearsay, clarifying that facts based on personal knowledge are not hearsay. Furthermore, the higher court found that any formal defects in the affidavit's jurat were waived by the opposing party's failure to object at the trial court level, and Angel's affidavit provided a reasonable, uncontroverted explanation for his failure to answer, setting forth a meritorious defense concerning separate property.

DivorceDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock StandardEquitable GroundsService of ProcessHague Service ConventionAffidavit AdmissibilityHearsay ObjectionSeparate Property
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. J.A.

This case addresses the extent to which a psychiatrist can rely on out-of-court materials, such as presentence reports and parole records, to establish a history of sex offenses for a "mental abnormality" diagnosis in a Mental Hygiene Law article 10 proceeding. The petitioner's expert psychiatrist diagnosed respondent Mr. A. with pedophilia, paraphilia n.o.s., and antisocial personality disorder, relying on various criminal history documents. The diagnosis of pedophilia specifically hinged on two 1961 incidents, whose underlying facts were challenged by the respondent as unreliable hearsay. The court analyzed the professional reliability and business record exceptions to the hearsay rule, finding that documents supporting 1980 and 1992 convictions were reliable due to corroboration. However, the reports for the 1961 convictions were deemed unreliable, lacking sufficient indicia of reliability, contemporaneity, and unchallengeable contents. Consequently, the court disregarded and excluded the expert's conclusion of pedophilia, as it was solely based on these unreliable hearsay documents, while affirming the reliance on other, more reliable evidence.

Mental Hygiene Law Article 10Sex Offender Management and Treatment Act (SOMTA)Expert TestimonyHearsay EvidenceProfessional Reliability ExceptionBusiness Records ExceptionPsychiatric DiagnosisPedophiliaPresentence ReportsParole Records
References
33
Case No. 570558/19
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2019

Prasad v. Spodek

This case involves an appeal by Todd Spodek, Esq. from a Civil Court judgment affirming an arbitration award in favor of Sunita Prasad. Spodek sought to vacate the award, arguing it was untimely and that the arbitrator improperly excluded his paralegal's hearsay testimony. The Appellate Term found Spodek's application was not untimely but denied it on the merits. The Court held that the arbitrator's refusal to consider the paralegal's hearsay testimony, which was based on conversations with Spodek and lacked competence to prove fee reasonableness, did not constitute misconduct. Spodek had alternative means to present evidence, such as testifying himself or submitting written declarations.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardHearsay EvidenceParalegal TestimonyArbitrator MisconductCPLR 7511Fee DisputeAppellate TermBurden of ProofReasonableness of Fee
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 1989

Albert G. v. Denise B.

This case involved a father's petition to terminate the mother's visitation rights with their 8-year-old child, leading to an order for supervised visitation. The child, born out of wedlock in 1983, made allegations in 1988 that his mother used cocaine in his presence. The Family Court admitted hearsay testimony from witnesses regarding these allegations, citing Family Court Act § 1046 as an exception for abuse and neglect cases. The mother appealed, arguing the testimony was inadmissible hearsay. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding the testimony properly received and corroboration present.

Family Court ActChild Visitation RightsTermination of Parental RightsChild Abuse AllegationsHearsay ExceptionSupervised VisitationOut-of-Wedlock ChildCustody DisputeParental ConductCocaine Use Allegations
References
3
Case No. 07-11-00389-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2012

Kristopher Bluntzer v. State

Kristopher Bluntzer appealed the revocation of his community supervision and a two-year sentence for two counts of theft. He argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting 'chronos' (supervision records) as hearsay. The appellate court found that the 'chronos' were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Furthermore, independent testimony from his fiancée and uncle sufficiently proved several violations of community supervision conditions. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, modifying it to explicitly state that community supervision was revoked for both counts with concurrent two-year state jail sentences.

Community Supervision RevocationTheftHearsay ExceptionBusiness RecordsSufficiency of EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureOral PronouncementWritten Judgment Discrepancy
References
10
Case No. 14-12-00378-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2013

Orlando Salinas v. State

Orlando Salinas appealed his conviction for injury to an elderly person, which resulted in a five-year prison sentence. His appeal presented three main contentions: the trial court erred by allowing expert testimony on victim recantation, admitting hearsay under the excited utterance exception, and assessing an unconstitutional court cost. The appellate court rejected all of Salinas's arguments. It found no abuse of discretion in admitting the expert testimony or the hearsay evidence, and it affirmed the constitutionality of the consolidated court cost, noting the appellant failed to meet his burden for a facial challenge and the valid uses of funds were severable. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Criminal AppealInjury to ElderlyVictim RecantationExpert Witness TestimonyHearsay ExceptionExcited UtteranceCourt CostsConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersAppellate Procedure
References
28
Case No. 06-19-00032-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2019

Ben Cannon Wherry v. State

Ben Cannon Wherry was indicted for manslaughter but convicted by a Rusk County jury of criminally negligent homicide, with a six-year prison sentence. He appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both the guilt and deadly-weapon findings, and alleging trial court error in admitting hearsay statements. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's findings, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the conviction and deadly-weapon finding, and that Wherry's hearsay arguments lacked merit or were harmless. However, the court modified the trial court's judgment to correctly reflect the offense as a state jail felony, rather than a third-degree felony, and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Criminally Negligent HomicideDeadly Weapon FindingLegal SufficiencyHearsayWaiver of ErrorJudgment ModificationState Jail FelonyThird-Degree FelonyTraffic AccidentManslaughter
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 204 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