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

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. 00 Civ. 4763
Regular Panel Decision

U.S. Information Systems, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union Number 3

The plaintiffs, CWA-affiliated electrical contractors led by U.S. Information Systems, Inc., filed an antitrust lawsuit against IBEW Local Union Number 3 and affiliated electrical contractors. Plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy to exclude them from the telecommunications installation market, causing higher prices and lost profits, in violation of the Sherman and Donnelly Acts. The defendants moved to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' economic expert, Dr. Frederick C. Dunbar, under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 703, arguing his methods and data were unreliable. Magistrate Judge Francis found that while Dr. Dunbar's qualifications and methodology were largely sound, his analysis concerning liability and causation relied on a biased data sample. Consequently, the court partially granted the defendants' motion, ruling that Dr. Dunbar's testimony based on the skewed data sample for liability and causation is inadmissible. However, his testimony not dependent on this biased data, including his damages calculations, remains admissible, and plaintiffs were instructed to submit a revised expert report if they intend to offer such testimony.

AntitrustMonopoly LeveragingExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardReliability of EvidenceStatistical AnalysisData BiasMarket PowerTelecommunications IndustryElectrical Contracting
References
41
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

EEOC v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

This opinion and order addresses motions to exclude expert testimony in a class action sex discrimination lawsuit. The court reviewed challenges to various experts, including those in statistics, sociology, and damages, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert standards. While motions to exclude statistical experts Dr. Farrell Bloch, Dr. William Wecker, Dr. Louis L. Wilde, and Sheldon Wishnick, and social science expert Dr. Barbara Gutek were largely denied, the court granted motions to exclude Roger Blanc (securities expert) and Dr. Ira T. Kay (compensation expert). Additionally, the court partially granted and denied motions for social science experts Dr. William Bielby, Dr. June O’Neill, and Dr. Christopher Winship, limiting specific aspects of their testimony. The court emphasized that many disputes regarding expert methodologies and opinions should be left for the jury to weigh during trial.

Expert TestimonyDaubert StandardFederal Rule of Evidence 702Sex DiscriminationClass Action LawsuitEmployment LawStatistical AnalysisSocial Science ResearchWorkplace BiasAdmissibility of Evidence
References
17
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Insurance Co. of America v. Joseph Daniel Construction, Inc.

Royal Insurance Company of America, acting in subrogation for Patrick and Linda Magee, sued Joseph Daniel Construction for fire damage to the Magee's garage. The defendant, JDC, filed motions to preclude the testimony of the plaintiff's fire expert, Patrick J. McGinley, and for summary judgment. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, denied both motions. The decision focused on the admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 104(a) and 702, applying the Daubert standard. The court found McGinley's testimony, based on NFPA 921 methodology, to be reliable and relevant, thus creating a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

Expert Testimony AdmissibilityDaubert StandardFederal Rules of EvidenceSummary JudgmentFire InvestigationSubrogationConstruction NegligenceNFPA 921Reliability of EvidenceRelevance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cano v. Everest Minerals Corp.

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. 03-533
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Silica Products Liability Litigation

This order addresses issues within a multidistrict litigation (MDL) concerning silicosis claims. For the case of Alexander v. Air Liquide America Corp. (S.D. Tex. Cause No. 03-533), involving 100 plaintiffs and 41 defendants, the court grants defendants' motion to exclude the expert testimony and diagnoses of Dr. Harron and Dr. Levy. The court found their methodologies for diagnosing silicosis unreliable due to inadequate occupational histories and a failure to properly rule out other conditions. Additionally, the court grants motions for sanctions against the law firm O'Quinn, Laminack & Pirtle, citing their unreasonable and vexatious multiplication of proceedings through the submission of unreliable diagnoses. The firm is ordered to cover Alexander's proportionate share of the defendants' costs for the Daubert hearings. Plaintiffs in Alexander are also instructed to amend jurisdictional allegations regarding American Optical's principal place of business.

SilicosisMultidistrict LitigationExpert TestimonyDaubert ChallengeSanctionsFraudulent DiagnosisSubject-Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionImproper JoinderRule 702
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 14,501 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