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
Sep 20, 2010

People v. Lenihan

On July 8, 2010, Karon Lenihan was convicted of second-degree murder. Lenihan moved to set aside the verdict, arguing errors in precluding cross-examination on witnesses' alleged gang affiliation and allowing a rebuttal witness without proper notice. The court, presided over by Darrell L. Gavrin, J., denied the motion on September 20, 2010, upholding the jury's verdict. The judge found the gang affiliation argument lacked a good faith basis and was speculative. Furthermore, the court ruled that allowing the prosecution's rebuttal witness, Andrew Searfoss, regarding cell phone tower locations was a proper exercise of discretion, especially given a granted three-day adjournment, and did not violate due process.

Criminal ProcedureVerdict ChallengeEvidentiary RulingsWitness CredibilityPrejudiceConstitutional RightsConfrontation ClauseAlibi NoticeJudicial DiscretionHomicide
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

CARTIER, DIV. OF RICHEMONT v. Bertone Group

In a trademark infringement case, defendants moved to disqualify plaintiffs' litigation counsel, Tal Benschar, Esq., from serving as a 30(b)(6) deposition witness, citing New York Disciplinary Rule 5-102 which addresses the advocate-witness rule. The Court denied the defendants' motion, allowing Mr. Benschar to testify. The Court acknowledged the potential for confusion and conflicting loyalties when a lawyer acts as both a witness and an advocate, but found these dangers less likely in the pre-trial context. It also considered that Mr. Benschar was in the best position to provide the requested information, having supervised the investigation. However, the Court deferred its ruling on whether Mr. Benschar’s testimony would disqualify him from subsequently serving as trial counsel, noting that another attorney would be primary trial counsel.

Trademark InfringementDiscoveryFed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)Attorney DisqualificationAdvocate-Witness RuleEthical RulesDeposition TestimonyPre-Trial ProcedureNew York LawCounsel Representation
References
2
Case No. ADJ8414182
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

VICTOR LEDESMA, (VICTOR GOMEZ LEDESMA) vs. GROUP MANUFACTURING SERVICES, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a left ankle and foot injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of the decision, arguing the applicant's testimony was less credible, the claim was barred as post-termination, exhibits were improperly admitted, and a defense witness was wrongly excluded. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible, noting inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the defendant's arguments and witness testimonies. Specifically, the judge determined the termination date was not a bar, the admission of exhibits was proper, and the exclusion of the unlisted rebuttal witness was warranted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.denial of reconsiderationoccupational injuryleft ankle and footdeburrerdenied claim
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gale

In a child abuse proceeding, the respondent father is accused of abusing his 3.5-year-old daughter. The petitioner, Commissioner of Social Services, presented hearsay testimony and a child psychiatrist's validation. The nonrespondent mother, who possesses relevant testimony regarding the child's behavior and physical condition, was not called by the Commissioner, who aimed to reserve her as a rebuttal witness. The court, presided over by Jeffry H. Gallet, J., addressed whether it could *sua sponte* order the Commissioner to call a witness under their control. Citing public policy considerations in child protective proceedings to ensure all evidence is before the court and acknowledging the grave potential consequences of an incorrect finding, the court determined it has an affirmative duty to ensure a full and complete presentation of all evidence. Consequently, the court ordered the Commissioner to call the mother as a witness.

Child AbuseWitness TestimonyCourt's AuthorityJudicial DiscretionFamily Court ActPublic PolicyBest Interests of the ChildEvidentiary RulesTrial TacticsChild Protective Proceedings
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2002

In Re the United States for Material Witness Warrant

This Opinion and Order addresses the Court's authority to investigate potential government misrepresentations in the case of Abdallah Higazy, a prospective grand jury witness. Higazy was detained as a material witness after a transceiver was allegedly found in his hotel room and he purportedly confessed during a polygraph test, both of which later proved false. The Court determined it lacked criminal contempt jurisdiction over the FBI agent's conduct but affirmed its inherent supervisory power to inquire into and publicize the truth of such misconduct. The Court ordered the Government to complete its internal investigation and report findings by October 31, 2002, while directing the unsealing of most case documents, subject to government-proposed redactions by August 9, 2002, to protect grand jury secrecy. The government's internal investigation reports were ordered to remain sealed.

Material WitnessGrand Jury InvestigationFBI MisconductFalse ConfessionJudicial Supervisory PowerCriminal ContemptUnsealing DocumentsGovernment MisrepresentationsPolygraph TestSeptember 11 Investigation
References
16
Case No. ADJ9782813
Regular
Feb 13, 2017

ELVINA BRYANT vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the Department of Corrections' due process claim. The Board vacated a prior award finding applicant sustained an industrial injury and remanded the case for further proceedings. This decision allows the defendant to present evidence that witness statements were timely provided despite their exclusion at trial. The defendant must also justify the late appearance of a rebuttal witness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitationcorrectional officerindustrial injurypsychedue processwitness exclusiondiscoveryPre-Trial Conference StatementMandatory Settlement Conference
References
3
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2000

Claim of Maliszewska v. Dupuy

Claimant, a domestic employee, suffered massive injuries, including the amputation of her right leg, after being struck by an automobile in January 1996 while caring for her employers' child. She applied for workers' compensation benefits, which were awarded by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The employers appealed, contending that the Board's decision was based on an incomplete record, that it merely adopted the WCLJ's findings, and that the WCLJ abused discretion by precluding a rebuttal witness. The court found no merit in these contentions, noting that the Board had all pertinent information, properly resolved factual and credibility issues, and that the WCLJ's preclusion of the witness was not an abuse of discretion. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsDomestic Employee InjuryAutomobile AccidentAmputation InjuryBoard Decision AppealIncomplete Record ArgumentWitness CredibilityEvidentiary RulingsJudicial DiscretionCompensable Injury Ruling
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tamara B. v. Pete F.

The petitioner-appellant sought an order of filiation to declare the respondent as the father of her child. The Family Court dismissed the paternity petition after a fact-finding hearing, discrediting the petitioner's testimony and crediting a defense witness who claimed to have had sexual intercourse with the petitioner during the period of conception and was accused of paternity by her. Although the petitioner presented strong HLA and RBC test results showing a 99.86% probability of paternity, the respondent's expert successfully challenged the analytical method used for these tests. Subsequently, the petitioner's motion to reopen proceedings to present rebuttal expert testimony was denied as untimely. On appeal, the higher court found that given the high probative value of HLA tests, the Family Court erred in denying the motion for expert rebuttal testimony. Consequently, the appellate court unanimously reversed the orders dismissing the paternity petition and denying the motion to reopen, reinstated the petition, granted the motion, and remanded the matter.

Paternity PetitionHLA Blood TestRBC Blood TestExpert Witness TestimonyStatistical AnalysisPaternity IndexReversal of OrderRemand for RebuttalFamily Court JurisdictionTimeliness of Motion
References
6
Case No. ADJ7785733, ADJ7632939
Regular
Oct 01, 2012

JOHN SHEK vs. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER OF OAKLAND, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves applicant's petitions for reconsideration and removal concerning administrative orders that sustained objections to witness subpoenas and excused a witness's appearance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petitions as intermediate orders are not subject to such review. They also denied the removal petition, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board upheld the WCJ's decision to exclude undisclosed witnesses and excuse the excused witness based on the applicant's failure to comply with discovery and witness disclosure rules.

Pro sePetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCAB RulesSubpoena Duces TecumQuash SubpoenaExcuse Witness AppearanceMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureNewly Discovered Evidence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 947 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