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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Orse

The defendant appealed a conviction for robbery in the first degree from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The appellate court found two significant errors during the trial: the improper admission of rebuttal testimony solely to impeach the credibility of the main alibi witness on a collateral issue, and the erroneous admission of bolstering identification testimony from the arresting officer. Additionally, the jury instructions were flawed as they seemed to shift the burden of proving alibi to the defendant and lacked a similar scrutiny admonition for identification testimony. Considering the tenuous nature of the identification evidence and these cumulative errors, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered in the interest of justice.

Criminal ProcedureEvidentiary ErrorsWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewIdentification TestimonyAlibi DefenseJury Charge ErrorReversible ErrorDiscretionary ReversalInterest of Justice
References
11
Case No. 06-md-1775
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2013

In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses objections to a Magistrate Judge's directive for partial disclosure of grand jury testimony from John Doe and James Doe, given in a federal investigation into price-fixing in the air cargo industry. District Judge John Gleeson sustained the objections filed by John Doe, James Doe, Airline 1, and Airline 2. The court determined that the Magistrate Judge erred by not adequately balancing the plaintiffs' particularized need for the testimony against the strong policy interest in maintaining grand jury secrecy. Despite the plaintiffs' need for impeachment or recollection refreshing, the court found this did not outweigh concerns about potential retaliation, social stigma, and the protection of witness reputations within the industry. Consequently, the grand jury testimony was ordered not to be disclosed.

Grand Jury SecrecyAntitrust LitigationPrice-fixing ConspiracyWitness Testimony DisclosureFederal Rules of Criminal Procedure 6(e)Douglas Oil StandardParticularized NeedEastern District of New YorkCivil ProcedureMagistrate Judge Order
References
21
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
Case No. ADJ8376821
Regular
Jul 21, 2014

BRIGHT ONYENWE vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that Bright Onyenwe sustained his injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board deferred to the WCJ's credibility determination regarding the applicant's testimony about a student's assault. The defendant failed to impeach the applicant's testimony or demonstrate that the WCJ's findings were unsupported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCABAOE/COECredibilityImpeachmentPanel QMESelf-defenseJROTC InstructorLos Angeles Unified School DistrictAdverse Inference
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1995

Hodges v. Keane

Plaintiff Richard Hodges, an inmate, sued Sing Sing correctional personnel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging harassment and retaliation. Defendants sought to introduce Hodges' extensive past mental health records and expert testimony from Dr. Richard Ciccone to impeach his credibility, claiming he suffered from conditions affecting his perception. The court found these records and testimony too remote in time from the events and potential trial, noting Hodges' last psychiatric symptoms were in 1982 while the alleged events started in 1987. Furthermore, the records were deemed unfairly prejudicial, voluminous, contradictory, and likely to confuse the jury. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to exclude this evidence was conditionally granted, though the court reserved the right to reconsider based on plaintiff's trial conduct.

Evidentiary RulesExpert Testimony AdmissibilityMental Health RecordsCredibility ImpeachmentFederal Rules of Evidence 403Rule 35(a) ExaminationCivil Rights LitigationPrisoner LitigationMotion In LimineUnfair Prejudice
References
17
Case No. 128270
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2025

Saraiva v. New York State Thruway Auth.

Mario Saraiva appealed a judgment from the Court of Claims that dismissed his claim for damages after he sustained injuries from a static electrical shock while working on a New York State Thruway overpass. Saraiva alleged a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation, asserting negligence due to a defective, ungrounded PVC vacuum pipe that had previously caused similar shocks. The Court of Claims, in a nonjury trial, found the defendant not liable. On appeal, Saraiva contended the judgment should be reversed due to several erroneous trial rulings, including the striking of testimony, preclusion of impeachment evidence, and limitations on expert testimony. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that any alleged errors were harmless and did not prejudice a substantial right of the claimant, as the court ultimately considered the relevant evidence.

Workers' CompensationStatic Electrical ShockPVC Vacuum PipeLabor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsHarmless ErrorPrejudicial ErrorWitness TestimonyExpert DisclosureImpeachment
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,564 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