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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Ackerson

In a felony driving while intoxicated trial, defendant Scott Ackerson moved to preclude the testimony of an emergency medical technician (EMT), Diane Wood, citing the physician-patient privilege under CPLR 4504(a). The court denied the motion, stating that evidentiary privileges, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed. The Legislature has not explicitly extended this privilege to EMTs, despite creating other specific privileges. The court found no evidence that the EMT acted as an agent for a physician. The opinion emphasized that an EMT's role is to stabilize patients, distinct from a physician's role of diagnosis and treatment, thus not falling within the purpose of the CPLR 4504 privilege.

PrivilegeEmergency Medical TechnicianEMTPhysician-Patient PrivilegeCPLR 4504Statutory InterpretationEvidentiary PrivilegeFelony DWITestimony PreclusionAgency
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1987

People v. Wilens

The defendant appealed a conviction for first-degree sodomy and incest from Dutchess County. The appeal concerned the admissibility of a social worker's testimony regarding prior consistent statements made by the five-year-old victim. The defendant argued that the social worker's testimony improperly bolstered the victim's repudiated Grand Jury testimony, which the defense implied was fabricated under the Assistant District Attorney's influence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the social worker's testimony was properly admitted to rehabilitate the victim's testimony against claims of recent fabrication.

sodomyincestchild victimcross-examinationprior consistent statementsrecent fabricationrehabilitation of witnessappellate reviewadmissibility of evidencewitness testimony
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porcelli v. PMA Associates

Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband's death from respiratory failure, alleging it was an occupational disease from toxic chemical exposure during his 30+ years as a printer. A WCLJ initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board later precluded the claimant's medical expert's report and testimony due to untimely filing under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (d) (12). This preclusion led the Board to find no established causal relationship, closing the case without benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate support for precluding the expert's evidence due to procedural non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDeath BenefitsMedical ExpertReport PreclusionTimely FilingProcedural RuleCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ6662275
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

DARRIN BEAN vs. CITY OF CHULA VISTA

This case involves an applicant seeking workers' compensation for a skin cancer injury. The applicant contests the testimony of an independent medical expert, Dr. Brigham, who offered an opinion on his impairment rating that differed from the agreed medical evaluator's (AME). The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, ruling that Dr. Brigham's testimony was inadmissible as he was neither an AME nor a treating physician and his testimony was not in rebuttal to formal rating instructions. Consequently, Dr. Brigham's testimony was stricken, the prior order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings based solely on admissible medical evidence.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesWhole Person ImpairmentPermanent Disability RatingClass 1 ImpairmentClass 2 ImpairmentClass 3 ImpairmentMedical Evidence AdmissibilityRebuttal Testimony
References
4
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 81574[U]
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Santiago

This case addresses the admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness identification in a criminal assault trial. The defendant, Edwin Santiago, was identified by the victim and two other witnesses, but concerns arose regarding the reliability of these identifications due to factors like partial concealment, initial uncertainty, and potential post-event influences. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion to admit expert testimony, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding key expert testimony on eyewitness recognition memory and ordered a new trial, finding the corroborating evidence insufficient to bypass the need for such testimony.

Eyewitness IdentificationExpert Testimony AdmissibilityEyewitness Recognition MemoryMistaken IdentificationCriminal AssaultAppellate ReviewNew Trial OrderedCorroborating EvidenceFrye HearingConfidence-Accuracy Correlation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,544 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