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

People v. Gans

This court opinion addresses whether a certified social worker can be qualified as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding a defendant's mental capacity to proceed and future competency. The defense sought to qualify Hillel Bodek, a certified social worker specializing in forensic clinical social work, as an expert witness for these purposes. The court meticulously reviewed the qualifications of clinical social workers, acknowledging their critical role in the diagnosis of mental disorders, including their involvement in the development of the DSM III. Despite statutory provisions in CPL article 730 outlining who may serve as psychiatric examiners, the court emphasized that other appropriately trained and experienced experts can also offer testimony on competence. Ultimately, the court ruled in the affirmative, concluding that certified social workers with demonstrated training and supervised clinical experience in diagnosis and capacity assessment are qualified to provide expert testimony on these crucial issues.

Expert Witness QualificationCertified Social WorkerMental Capacity AssessmentCompetency to ProceedForensic Mental HealthDiagnostic AssessmentPrognostic StatementsCriminal Procedure Law Article 730DSM IIINon-Medical Expert Testimony
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Texas State Board of Orthotics & Prosthetics

This case addresses a challenge by several orthotists (appellants) against rules established by the Texas State Board of Orthotics and Prosthetics. The appellants contested the validity of rules defining "comprehensive orthotic care" for a "grandfather" licensing exemption and "unique qualifications" for a second exemption under the new Orthotics and Prosthetics Act. They argued that the Board exceeded its statutory authority by mandating fabrication experience for the "grandfather" provision and by making the "unique qualifications" exemption redundant. The appellate court overturned the district court's summary judgment, ruling that the Board's definitions for "comprehensive orthotic care" and "unique qualifications" were invalid for not aligning with the Act's broader objectives and legislative intent.

OrthoticsProstheticsLicensing ExemptionsGrandfather ClauseAdministrative Rules ValidityStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment AppealTexas Occupational CodeAgency Authority
References
26
Case No. ADJ1972276 (LAO 0862108) ADJ2914408 (LAO 0889233)
Regular
Mar 07, 2011

AMANDA CORONADO vs. BALLY'S TOTAL FITNESS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant, E&M Interpreting, seeking payment for alleged interpretation services during the applicant's medical treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision that E&M failed to meet its burden of proof. Specifically, E&M did not demonstrate the qualifications of its interpreters or the necessity of the services provided. The Board affirmed that lien claimants must prove both the reasonableness and necessity of services, as well as the qualifications of the individuals providing them, to be entitled to payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationQualified interpretersBurden of proofInterpretation servicesMedical treatment appointmentsAdministrative law judgeFindings and OrderBilling
References
0
Case No. E2014-02277-COA-R3-CV-FILED-JULY 16, 2015
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Randy R. Moss, Jr. v. Dan P. Evans

This appeal concerns an election contest where Randy R. Moss, Jr. challenged Dan P. Evans' qualifications for Chief Administrative Officer of the McMinn County Highway Department. The Trial Court had dismissed Moss's challenge, concluding it lacked jurisdiction as the Tennessee Highway Officials Certification Board (THOCB) was the exclusive arbiter. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal against the Election Commission but reversed the dismissal against Evans, holding that the Trial Court erred in declining jurisdiction. The appellate court found that challenging a candidate's qualifications through an election contest is a permissible avenue, even if administrative remedies were not exhausted. The case was remanded for further proceedings against Evans.

Election ContestCandidate QualificationsHighway CommissionerMcMinn CountySubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineStatutory InterpretationTennessee Court of AppealsBallot Certification
References
23
Case No. 02-12-00122-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2013

Clinton Brunson, M.D. v. Ellvan Johnston

In this interlocutory appeal, Clinton Brunson, M.D., challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss a healthcare liability claim filed by Ellvan Johnston. Johnston alleged Dr. Brunson was negligent in interpreting an MRI scan, which resulted in a delayed diagnosis of a spinal cord injury, ultimately leading to permanent neurological damage. Dr. Brunson contended that the expert reports from Drs. Lustgarten and Shalen were insufficient in establishing their qualifications and adequately detailing proximate causation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the expert reports provided sufficient information regarding the standards of care, breach, causation, and the experts' qualifications.

Healthcare LiabilityMedical MalpracticeExpert ReportStandard of CareProximate CauseMRI InterpretationSpinal Cord InjuryNeurological InjuryInterlocutory AppealAbuse of Discretion
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Epter v. New York City Transit Authority

Jack Epter sued the New York City Transit Authority (TA) for age discrimination under the ADEA after he was not promoted to Station Supervisor, Level I. The TA's policy required all applicants over forty, or those under forty with risk factors, to undergo an EKG. Epter, aged forty-six, refused the EKG. The court found this policy to be facially discriminatory, violating the ADEA, as it differentiated based on age without a valid bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). The TA failed to prove that nearly all employees over forty lacked qualifications or that individualized testing was impractical. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Epter and denied the TA's motion.

Age Discrimination in Employment ActADEASummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationEKG RequirementMedical Examination PolicyBona Fide Occupational QualificationFacial DiscriminationPromotion DenialNew York City Transit Authority
References
14
Case No. W2005-01508-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2005

Walter Bailey v. County of Shelby

This appeal from a declaratory judgment action addresses the constitutionality of term limits for Shelby County Commissioners. The court determined that while term limits constitute 'qualifications' under Tennessee Code Annotated § 5-1-210(4), the statute itself is unconstitutional. Article VII, Section 1 of the Tennessee Constitution mandates that the General Assembly, not county charters, has the authority to prescribe qualifications for constitutional officers, which include members of the county legislative body. Consequently, the trial court's judgment granting summary judgment to the County was vacated. The Court of Appeals awarded summary judgment to the Plaintiffs/Appellants and enjoined the enforcement of the term limit provision in the Shelby County Charter.

Term LimitsCounty GovernmentConstitutional DelegationLegislative QualificationsCounty CharterDeclaratory Judgment ActionSummary JudgmentTennessee ConstitutionArticle VIIJudicial Review
References
34
Case No. CA 12-01143
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

PROFESSIONAL, CLERICAL, TECHNICAL, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, concerning an arbitration award. The petitioner, Professional, Clerical, Technical, Employees Association, sought to vacate an arbitration award, which the Supreme Court, Erie County, initially granted. The respondent, Board of Education for Buffalo City School District, appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying the petition to vacate and granting the cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award. The court concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding employee qualifications for new positions was neither irrational nor an exceeding of authority. The arbitrator's decision upheld the supervisor's discretion in assessing qualifications beyond minimum requirements for Assistant Management Analyst positions.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewLabor LawAppellate DivisionSupervisor DiscretionEmployee QualificationsContract InterpretationNew York LawSchool District
References
15
Case No. 03-03-00606-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2004

Robert E. Williams, Timothy David Williams, Terry Wayne Tausch, Tommy Joe Robinson, Starley Eugene Shugart, and Charles J. Giammalva v. Texas Board of Orthotics and Prosthetics Donna S. Flippin, Individually and in Her Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Board of Orthotics and Prosthetics And Texas Department of Health

This case addresses the validity of rules established by the Texas State Board of Orthotics and Prosthetics regarding licensing exemptions under the 1997 Orthotics and Prosthetics Act. Appellants, orthotists practicing before the Act's passage, challenged the Board's denial of their licenses under 'grandfather' and 'unique qualifications' exemptions. The Board's rules required experience in manufacturing orthotic devices, which appellants contended was overly restrictive. The district court's summary judgment favoring the Board was reversed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ruled that the Board's definition of 'comprehensive orthotic care,' which included fabrication, contradicted the Act's intent to provide reasonable opportunities for already competent orthotists. Additionally, the 'unique qualifications' rule was deemed invalid for being redundant, as it imposed the same 'comprehensive orthotic care' standard, thus negating the distinct purpose of a second exemption pathway.

Orthotics and Prosthetics ActLicensing ExemptionsGrandfather ClauseUnique QualificationsAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationAgency AuthorityComprehensive Orthotic CareFabrication RequirementAppellate Review
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Evans v. Great Eastern Lumber Co.

This appeal concerns a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant’s schedule loss of use award following a work-related injury. The claimant, who later died from unrelated causes, suffered the amputation of fingers on his right hand. The Board awarded his widow a 40% schedule loss of use of the right hand, relying on a report from Dr. Lawrence Enisman, a plastic surgeon, despite a different assessment by a Board medical examiner. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge had rejected Enisman’s report due to undisclosed qualifications. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the Board is authorized to accept or reject medical evidence and assess expert qualifications, and that its resolution of conflicting medical evidence was supported by substantial evidence. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying a further medical examination.

Schedule Loss of UseMedical Opinion ConflictAdministrative Agency DiscretionExpert Witness QualificationsWorkers' Compensation AppealDisability EvaluationHand Amputation InjurySubstantial Evidence ReviewLegal Residuum RuleAppellate Division Decision
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 159 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