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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case involves a petitioner's suit to review a Deputy Commissioner's finding of partial permanent disability and an order for the insurance carrier to pay compensation. The core issue is whether the Deputy Commissioner's findings regarding disability and wage-earning capacity are supported by substantial evidence. The court considered medical testimony from a neuro-surgeon, Dr. Harry Starr, detailing the petitioner's physical and emotional ailments and an estimated 20-25% medical disability. Testimony from the Texas Employment Commission on available light work and wages was also presented. The court ultimately affirmed the Deputy Commissioner's award, ruling that it was supported by substantial evidence, thus denying the petitioner's motion for summary judgment and granting those of the Deputy Commissioner and The Travelers Insurance Company.

Longshoremen's ActWorkers' CompensationPartial Permanent DisabilityWage-Earning CapacitySubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyNeuro-surgeryMental HealthAdministrative ReviewSummary Judgment
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23398 [81 Misc 3d 21]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Plaintiff, Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C., filed a commercial claims action against Global Commodities, Inc. for $5,000 for unpaid medical services provided to an alleged employee. Plaintiff claimed defendant agreed to pay privately. The District Court dismissed the action after excluding a document detailing telephone conversations, which plaintiff argued was admissible under the business records exception or relaxed commercial claims evidence rules. The Appellate Term affirmed the dismissal, ruling that plaintiff failed to prove the patient was injured during employment or that the document was admissible as a business record, thus failing to establish defendant's liability for the medical bill. The court emphasized that while commercial claims courts are not bound by strict evidence rules, judgments cannot rest solely on hearsay.

Commercial claimsMedical servicesUnpaid billsBusiness records exceptionHearsayEvidence rulesEmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewSubstantial justice
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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
Oct 29, 2007

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Claimant, a retired police officer, had two work-related car accidents in 1991 and 2000, receiving workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. His 1991 claim was reopened for further treatment, leading to surgery in 2003 by his orthopedic surgeon, Peter Lesniewski. Claimant sought compensation for lost time, and a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found his retirement involuntary. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, erroneously claiming the record lacked Lesniewski's testimony. The appellate court found this was a critical error, as Lesniewski's testimony, though not directly advising retirement, was relevant to claimant's condition prior to retiring and his ability to perform his job. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case for reconsideration of the voluntariness of claimant's retirement in light of Lesniewski’s testimony.

Workers CompensationVoluntary RetirementLabor MarketMedical TestimonyOrthopedic SurgeryRemittalAppellate ReviewFactual DeterminationError of LawSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Claimant suffered a work-related back injury in 1998, leading to workers' compensation benefits. Liability was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2006. In 2012, an orthopedic surgeon found total disability, leading to surgery and a proposed weekly compensation rate. The Special Fund objected, seeking claimant's testimony on labor market attachment, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the request and awarded benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, finding involuntary separation from the labor market in 2003 due to the injury, negating the need for testimony. The appellate court reversed, citing a lack of substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that claimant retired in 2003 due to the compensable injury, and prejudiced the Special Fund by denying testimony. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary WithdrawalDisability RetirementSpecial FundSubstantial EvidencePrejudiced PartyRemittalTestimony Denial
References
4
Case No. 69
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Plaintiff Donovan Hewitt sued Metro-North Commuter Railroad under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for shoulder and arm injuries attributed to unsafe work conditions as a coach cleaner. Metro-North responded with a Daubert motion to exclude Hewitt's ergonomics expert, Dr. Andres, alleging unreliability, and a motion for partial summary judgment, claiming Dr. Sasson's (treating orthopedic surgeon) testimony was dependent on Dr. Andres's. The Court, referencing varying precedents on ergonomics expert testimony, deemed Dr. Andres qualified and his opinions, based on sufficient facts and accepted methodologies, largely admissible. Consequently, Metro-North's motions to exclude expert testimonies and for partial summary judgment were denied, though Dr. Andres was prohibited from stating legal conclusions on causation or negligence.

FELAErgonomicsExpert TestimonyDaubert MotionSummary JudgmentWorkplace InjuryRailroad SafetyMedical CausationBioengineeringOrthopedic Surgery
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

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

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

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

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This is a toxic tort case brought by fifty-three individuals and related claimants against defendants engaged in uranium mining and milling activities in Karnes County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that exposure to ionizing radiation from uranium ore and its decay products caused their various cancers. The Court considered Defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Dr. Malin Dollinger, the Plaintiffs’ sole expert on specific causation. Dr. Dollinger's methodology, based on differential diagnosis and the linear no-threshold hypothesis, was found unreliable for determining specific causation. Consequently, the Court granted Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Dollinger's testimony and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, dismissing the case with prejudice due to Plaintiffs' lack of admissible proof on specific causation.

Toxic TortUranium MiningRadiation ExposureCancer CausationExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardSummary JudgmentSpecific CausationGeneral CausationEpidemiology
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

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
Showing 1-10 of 3,858 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