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. Dkt. Nos. 817, 822
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Rutigliano

Defendants Joseph Rutigliano and Peter Lesniewski filed motions for a new trial or, in the alternative, resentencing, based on alleged newly discovered evidence. They were previously convicted for their involvement in a widespread scheme to fraudulently obtain disability benefits from the United States Railroad Retirement Board. The new evidence pertained to the reinstatement of a significant number of disability pensions that the Government had considered fraudulent. The Court denied the defendants' motions for a new trial, finding that the Government had presented overwhelming evidence of their guilt. However, the Court ordered a hearing to address the defendants' sentences, specifically regarding the calculation of loss suffered by the Long Island Railroad, in light of the newly discovered evidence.

Criminal ProcedureNew Trial MotionResentencing MotionNewly Discovered EvidenceFraudDisability Benefits FraudRailroad Retirement Board (RRB)Mail FraudWire FraudHealth Care Fraud
References
4
Case No. 01-13-00200-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2013

in Re City of Houston

The City of Houston petitioned for a writ of mandamus to challenge a trial court's order granting a new trial in a case where LaShonda Rochelle and Mattie Etubom sued the City for injuries from a collision with a Houston Police Department patrol car. The trial court's new trial order was based on alleged misconduct by the City (spoliation of evidence, limine order violation) and newly-discovered evidence. The Court of Appeals reviewed each basis for the new trial order. It found that the spoliation of evidence could not support a new trial as the jury had received a spoliation instruction, and any sanctions were waived. The newly-discovered evidence was also deemed insufficient due to lack of due diligence by the plaintiffs and its nature as merely impeaching or not requiring disclosure. Finally, the limine order violation was found to be harmless error. Therefore, the Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to withdraw its new trial order and enter judgment on the original jury verdict.

MandamusNew Trial OrderAbuse of DiscretionSpoliation of EvidenceLimine Order ViolationHarmless ErrorNewly-Discovered EvidenceJury VerdictTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureGovernmental Immunity
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Druziak v. Town of Amsterdam

Hartford Insurance Company appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board had denied Hartford's applications for rehearing and reconsideration, based on purportedly newly discovered evidence. The case originated from a volunteer fireman's knee injury, where Hartford was identified as the insurance carrier and subsequently penalized for failing to file necessary forms. Hartford argued it was not the proper carrier but failed to present this evidence timely. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding that the 'newly discovered evidence' could have been presented earlier and Hartford's default was due to its own failure to investigate.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewRehearing ApplicationReconsideration RequestNewly Discovered EvidenceInsurance Carrier LiabilityProcedural DefaultVolunteer Fireman InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionsDiscretionary Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ301960 (VNO 0479189) ADJ963491 (VNO 0468662) ADJ1360597 (VNO 0457429)
Regular
Jun 16, 2018

MICHAEL AYALA, THOMAS CASE, TOMMY VASQUEZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, REHABILITATION/LANCASTER STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACTS SERVICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to further study the applicants' claims of serious and willful misconduct by the defendant and allegations of evidence destruction. Applicants Michael Ayala and Tommy Vasquez sought increased compensation based on these claims. A newly discovered document, purportedly a destroyed Chrono 128-B, was submitted by applicants as newly discovered evidence. The WCAB accepted the supplemental pleadings but deferred ruling on the admissibility of the new evidence and its impact on the case to the trial level. Consequently, the previous Joint Findings of Fact have been rescinded, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and willful misconductCollusionDestroyed evidenceNewly discovered evidence128-B ChronoRescindedReturned to trial levelJoint Findings of FactPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kwasnik v. Willo Packing Co.

This case concerns an appeal by a petitioner from an order that vacated a prior judgment which confirmed an arbitrator's award. The petitioner was discharged for alleged theft, but an arbitrator ordered his reinstatement. The respondent sought to overturn this, initially alleging fraud and later presenting 'newly discovered evidence' after the petitioner gave conflicting testimony in a co-worker's trial. Special Term granted the respondent's motion, vacating the prior judgment. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that newly discovered evidence is not a valid ground for vacating an arbitrator's award under CPLR 7511, and that the evidence presented was either previously available or merely impeaching. The original judgment confirming the arbitrator's award was thus reinstated.

Arbitration AwardVacaturReinstatementCollective BargainingFraud AllegationsNewly Discovered EvidenceCPLR 7511Appellate ReviewWitness CredibilityDischarge for Misconduct
References
3
Case No. 05-13-01233-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

Masoud Kahrobaie, Ebrahim Kahrobaie, and Joseph Kahrobaie A/K/A Yusef Kahrobee v. Wilshire State Bank

Appellants Masoud, Ebrahim, and Joseph Kahrobaie appealed the denial of their motion to set aside and for a new trial following a no-evidence summary judgment granted to appellee Wilshire State Bank. The underlying case was a breach of contract action where the bank sought a deficiency judgment after foreclosing on a hotel purchased by appellants. Appellants argued the trial court erred by denying their motion, claiming a meritorious defense based on fraud by nondisclosure and presenting newly discovered evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the appellants failed to satisfy all three elements of the Craddock test for a new trial and did not meet the requirements for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Summary judgment appealMotion to set asideBreach of contractPromissory note deficiencyForeclosure saleFraud by nondisclosureCraddock factorsNewly discovered evidenceAbuse of discretionTexas Fifth District Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2002

Depew v. Lancet Arch, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that denied the claimant's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. Previously, the Board had found that the claimant did not sustain an accidental injury in the course of employment and denied workers’ compensation benefits. The claimant sought to reopen the matter based on "newly discovered evidence," including a coworker's testimony from a discrimination suit and medical reports prepared after the case was closed. The court affirmed the Board's denial, concluding that the "newly discovered evidence" did not meet the standards set forth in 12 NYCRR 300.14, as the coworker's information was not new, and the medical evidence was not shown to be unavailable at the original hearings. The court limited its review to whether the denial of reconsideration was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.

Workers’ Compensation BoardAppealReconsiderationFull Board ReviewNewly Discovered EvidenceCausally Related DisabilityProcedural StandardsMedical EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and Capricious
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

BFI Group Divino Corp. v. JSC Russian Aluminum

The current case is a motion for relief from a judgment filed by BFI Group Divino Corp. against JSC Russian Aluminum and others. The initial judgment, entered on May 30, 2007, dismissed BFI's claims due to forum non conveniens, deeming Nigeria an adequate alternative forum. BFI argues that newly discovered evidence, including a kidnaping incident of RUSAL employees and increased violence in Nigeria, makes Nigeria unsafe. However, the court, presided over by Senior District Judge William C. Conner of the Southern District of New York, denies the motion. The judge finds that the evidence is not truly "newly discovered" as it largely post-dates the original judgment, was not justifiably unknown, and would not have altered the previous decision. The court emphasizes that the alleged kidnaping occurred far from the prospective trial venue in Abuja and that BFI continues its own litigation and business pursuits in Nigeria, making its safety concerns appear inconsistent and the new evidence cumulative of prior arguments.

Forum non conveniensMotion for relief from judgmentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)Newly discovered evidenceAdequate alternative forumNigeria security concernsInternational business disputeKidnaping incidentWitness unavailabilityPrivate interest factors
References
14
Case No. ADJ2189918 (LBO 0387807)
Regular
Apr 20, 2017

RUDEEN PARKS vs. THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES, CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Rudeen Parks' petition for reconsideration, which alleged newly discovered evidence of fraud regarding a prior disability retirement. The Board found the petition lacked specificity and failed to meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence. Furthermore, the Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of 100% permanent disability, the award of lifetime indemnity benefits, and the directive for the defendant to handle attorney's fees and liens, noting issues like taxability are outside their jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRudeen ParksPort of Los AngelesCity of Los AngelesFindings and AwardOpinion and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeSecurity OfficerIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. No. 09-274, No. 11-CR-230, No. E2011-00500-CCA-R3-CD, No. E2011-02114-CCA-R3-PC
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2012

State of Tennessee v. Thomas D. Taylor

This case consolidates two appeals by Thomas D. Taylor: a direct appeal and an appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Taylor was convicted of especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault, receiving a seventy-year sentence. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, trial court error in limiting cross-examination, prosecutorial misconduct, and failure to consider newly discovered evidence (victim's medical records indicating delusions). The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgments, finding no prejudice from counsel's performance and ruling that the 'newly discovered evidence' lacked diligence in discovery and was not credible.

Criminal AppealEspecially Aggravated KidnappingAggravated AssaultIneffective Assistance of CounselProsecutorial MisconductCross-Examination LimitsNewly Discovered EvidenceWrit of Error Coram NobisAppellate ReviewVictim Credibility
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 15,291 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