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. ADJ14635315
Regular
Aug 29, 2025

MARTIN AGUILAR vs. ANTON SEITZ DBA KARLS CUSTOM SASH AND DOORS, OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY DBA BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The case involves a Petition for Removal filed by lien claimant The Dental Trauma Center Hawthorne against a WCJ's order allowing remote testimony for defense witnesses in a lien trial. The lien claimant argued potential prejudice and irreparable harm, while the defendant submitted an answer and the WCJ recommended denying removal. The Appeals Board found that due process requires a sufficient record for meaningful review, which was absent as no documentary record of the parties' arguments regarding the remote testimony order was made. Consequently, the Board granted the Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantRemote Witness TestimonyIrreparable HarmDue ProcessFair HearingWCJ OrderRescindedReturned to Trial LevelAdjudication Number
References
9
Case No. ADJ1504028 (AHM 0081465); ADJ603748 (AHM 0081464)
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

JENNIFER DICORATO vs. BLOOMFIELD BAKERY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The case involves a petition for removal filed by lien claimant Stuart Silverman, M.D., challenging an order by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ's order permitted the defendant to substitute a bill review expert witness and allow remote testimony. The Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition, defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report, dismissed the petition. The Board concluded that the issue was not yet ripe for adjudication as no final order or decision regarding the expert witness substitution or remote testimony had been issued by the WCJ. The decision further noted the importance of a complete record and admonished the lien claimant's representative, Dan Escamilla, for misrepresenting facts in the verified petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantSubstitution of Expert WitnessRemote TestimonyWCJ DecisionNot Ripe for AdjudicationPretrial Conference StatementSubstantial EvidenceAdmitted EvidenceSanctions
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angamarca v. Da Ciro, Inc.

Plaintiff Carlos Angamarea, an undocumented immigrant, filed a lawsuit against Da Ciro, Inc. and its principal, Ciro Verde, alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. After returning to his native Ecuador, Angamarea sought to provide deposition and trial testimony remotely. Defendant Da Ciro moved to dismiss the claims due to Angamarea's failure to appear in person. The Court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis, denied the motion, ruling that Angamarea's immigration status constituted compelling circumstances for remote testimony. The decision emphasized that employers cannot leverage an employee's immigration status as a defense to FLSA claims, especially when the status was known at the time of employment.

Undocumented ImmigrantRemote DepositionRemote TestimonyWage and Hour LawsFLSAFair Labor Standards ActMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSouthern District of New YorkDiscovery
References
11
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

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. ADJ8647584
Regular
Jun 07, 2017

Antonio Vargas vs. Darrell Becker, Becker Construction, Ace Private Risk Services, ESIS, Miguel Quintero

The Appeals Board affirmed a WCJ's finding that Antonio Vargas sustained industrial injury to his bilateral wrists while employed as a painter/helper. The Board found no error in admitting Vargas's remote testimony via FaceTime from Mexico, considering his deportation established his unavailability. Testimony from Aida Higuera, mother of Vargas's children, was also deemed admissible to confirm his identity, as the need arose after the pre-trial conference. However, the issue of injury to other body parts was deferred for further proceedings due to insufficient evidence.

Remote TestimonyFaceTimeDue ProcessEvidence Code 240Labor Code 5502(d)(3)Pretrial Conference StatementUnavailabilityPerjuryFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureLabor Code 5710
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,577 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