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. 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

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jo v. JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC

Mee Jin-Jo (now deceased and represented by her daughter Billian Jo) filed a pro se lawsuit against JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC, alleging improper retention of property after her eviction. Following a jury verdict of "no cause of action," Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court addressed Plaintiff's grievances concerning evidentiary rulings, consistency between in limine rulings and trial decisions, the presence of a corporate representative, proper service of discovery documents, opportunity to review deposition transcripts, judicial conduct, and the admissibility of new evidence and lay opinion testimony. The Court denied the motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a new trial was warranted.

Motion for New TrialRule 59 FRCPEvidentiary RulingsJury VerdictHarmless ErrorCorporate RepresentativeDeposition TranscriptLay Opinion TestimonyFederal Rules of EvidenceJudicial Discretion
References
50
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1989

Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed an appeal concerning age discrimination. The plaintiff, Joseph Murphy, alleged wrongful termination by his employer, American Home Products Corporation, due to age. The trial court had ruled in favor of the defendant, having limited the testimony of a crucial witness for the plaintiff, Mr. Lalicki, whose testimony aimed to demonstrate a discriminatory attitude by a corporate vice-president towards older employees. The appellate court determined that excluding Mr. Lalicki's testimony was an abuse of discretion, as it was highly relevant to prove the employer's discriminatory intent and that the stated reason for discharge was a pretext. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, reinstated the complaint, and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing the importance of allowing relevant evidence in discrimination cases.

age discriminationwrongful terminationevidentiary rulingwitness testimonyabuse of discretionemployment lawpretextdiscriminatory intentappellate procedurejury trial
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White v. Keane

Robert C. White, a state prisoner, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1993 Sullivan County conviction for multiple counts of sodomy and sexual abuse. He raised five main claims: denial of speedy trial rights (CPL § 30.30), Brady violation due to delayed disclosure of exculpatory grand jury testimony, erroneous admission of child sexual abuse syndrome expert testimony, trial court error in not setting aside the verdict based on new evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court reviewed his claims, noting prior state appellate decisions affirming parts of his conviction. Ultimately, the District Court dismissed White's habeas petition, finding no constitutional violations in the state court proceedings regarding his speedy trial, Brady claim, expert testimony, new evidence, or ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Habeas CorpusSpeedy TrialBrady ViolationExculpatory EvidenceIneffective Assistance of CounselChild Sexual Abuse SyndromeNewly Discovered EvidenceFederal ReviewCriminal ProcedureSexual Abuse
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Witherel v. Balling Construction, Inc.

The judgment in this negligence case was unanimously reversed, and a new trial was granted due to a significant error by the trial court. The error involved allowing testimony regarding the alleged drinking habits of workmen at the construction site. The court clarified that habit testimony is only admissible for deliberate and repetitive practices, not general habits, and that co-workers' habits are not probative of the plaintiff's actions and are highly prejudicial. Testimony concerning the plaintiff’s alleged drinking on the day of the accident is permissible solely to support the defense's theory that the fall was not ladder-related, thus not proximately caused by a breach of statutory duty. However, such testimony is inadmissible for alleged violations of Labor Law § 240(1), as contributory negligence is not a defense in such instances.

AppealNew trialLabor LawHabit testimonyAdmissibility of evidenceContributory negligenceStatutory dutyPrejudicial errorConstruction site accidentPersonal injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waterson v. Plank Road Motel Corp.

Suzanne Waterson, a former employee of Best Western Inn, sued for sexual harassment and discriminatory termination. Defendants moved to bar testimony on compensatory and punitive damages and to restrict the testimony of another former employee, Anne Marie Malinowski. The court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which allows compensatory/punitive damages and jury trials for Title VII claims, was not retroactive to Waterson's alleged pre-1991 conduct. However, Waterson could seek compensatory damages and a jury trial under her supplemental New York State Human Rights Law claim, provided her state claim was dismissed for "administrative convenience." The court denied the motion to restrict Malinowski's testimony, finding it relevant to demonstrating a hostile work environment and discriminatory intent. Ultimately, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion regarding damages, allowing compensatory damages only for the state law claim, and denied the motion to restrict Malinowski's testimony.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1991RetroactivityCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesJury TrialState Law ClaimNew York State Human Rights Law
References
18
Case No. ADJ6524117
Regular
Mar 24, 2014

Norma Rodriguez vs. Norman Sigel, M.D., Employers Compensation Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Employers Compensation Insurance Company's petition to remove a WCJ's order compelling applicant attendance at trial. The Board found the WCJ erred by ordering applicant testimony before a trial record was established and discovery closed. The order compelling attendance was rescinded, and the case returned for trial; the WCJ may allow applicant testimony if she appears voluntarily.

Petition for RemovalDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue DiligenceAOE/COEStipulated AwardPetition for ContributionIndispensable PartyLay Witness TestimonyEvidentiary Record
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Orse

The defendant appealed a conviction for robbery in the first degree from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The appellate court found two significant errors during the trial: the improper admission of rebuttal testimony solely to impeach the credibility of the main alibi witness on a collateral issue, and the erroneous admission of bolstering identification testimony from the arresting officer. Additionally, the jury instructions were flawed as they seemed to shift the burden of proving alibi to the defendant and lacked a similar scrutiny admonition for identification testimony. Considering the tenuous nature of the identification evidence and these cumulative errors, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was ordered in the interest of justice.

Criminal ProcedureEvidentiary ErrorsWitness CredibilityAppellate ReviewIdentification TestimonyAlibi DefenseJury Charge ErrorReversible ErrorDiscretionary ReversalInterest of Justice
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 7,536 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