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 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

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

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
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

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
Case No. ADJ7079255
Regular
Nov 28, 2014

ANA LILIA GARCIA vs. VMI JEANSWEAR, INCORPORATED, FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) findings. The ALJ found the applicant's testimony regarding her injury to be unreliable and inconsistent with other evidence, including employer testimony and medical reports. Medical evidence was deemed not substantial because it relied on an inaccurate history of the applicant's job duties and symptoms. Ultimately, the Board concluded that the applicant failed to prove an industrial injury based on the lack of credible testimony and substantial medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDenying ReconsiderationCredibility FindingAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryMedical EvidenceInconsistent TestimonySubstantial EvidenceRebuttal EvidenceWCJ Report
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1987

People v. Figueroa

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court, Orange County, convicting him of rape in the first degree and sodomy in the first degree. The defendant argued that the evidence was legally insufficient due to inconsistencies in the nine-year-old victim's testimony and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court found the victim's sworn testimony provided a rational basis for the jury's conclusion, and the evidence was legally sufficient. The court addressed the victim's delayed reporting, minor inconsistencies in her testimony, and conflicting medical expert opinions, ultimately affirming the judgment.

Rape First DegreeSodomy First DegreeSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceChild Victim TestimonyCredibility of WitnessCorroboration of TestimonyDelayed ReportingExpert Medical TestimonySexual Abuse Evidence
References
28
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 Espino v. Louis J. Solomon, Inc.

The claimant, a warehouse worker, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging an occupational disease to his left knee and lower back from repetitive movement. The employer controverted the claim, stating the claimant was terminated for insubordination. A WCLJ initially found the claim compensable, relying on the claimant's uncontroverted testimony. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed the WCLJ's decision, disallowing the claim due to inconsistencies in the claimant's testimony and filed forms. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence to support the Board's decision, noting the Board's failure to consider available witness testimony and its reliance on conflicting evidence while ignoring uncontroverted evidence of a work-related injury. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseKnee InjuryLower Back InjuryRepetitive Movement InjuryCredibility AssessmentWitness TestimonySubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Greiner

The petitioner, Robinson Rodriguez, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1998 New York State Supreme Court conviction for first-degree sodomy. He argued that his due process rights were violated due to insufficient corroboration of the victim's unsworn testimony and overall insufficient evidence. The court, presided over by District Judge Gershon, reviewed the evidence presented at trial, including medical testimony, prompt outcry evidence, and the petitioner's statements to the police. Ultimately, the court concluded that the victim's unsworn testimony was sufficiently corroborated and that a rational trier of fact could have found the petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the petition was denied, and a certificate of appealability was also denied.

Habeas CorpusSodomyChild Sexual AbuseSufficiency of EvidenceCorroborationUnsworn TestimonyAutistic VictimDue ProcessFederal PetitionState Conviction
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 11,476 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