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

Tucker v. American Telephone & Telegraph Corp.

This product liability case involves a motion for a new trial filed by the plaintiffs after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant. The central issue is the admissibility of testimony from Dr. Wallace Dixon Ward, an experimental psychologist and physicist, concerning medical causation of hearing loss. Plaintiffs argued that Dr. Ward was not competent to testify under Tennessee law, which generally requires expert medical proof for such issues. The court, however, found that Tennessee law, as interpreted through various case precedents, does not strictly limit expert testimony on causation to medical doctors, especially when the expertise falls within a scientific field like physics concerning the effects of noise on hearing. The court concluded that Dr. Ward was well-qualified to offer his opinion and denied the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.

Product LiabilityExpert Witness CompetencyCausationHearing LossAcoustic TraumaFederal Rules of EvidenceTennessee LawExperimental PsychologyPhysicsNoise Exposure
References
7
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. 01C01-9706-CC-00215
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

State v. Earnest Travis

The defendant, Earnest Eugene Travis, appealed his conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicant after a bench trial. The trial court imposed a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days, with supervised probation after forty-eight hours in jail, and revoked his driver's license. Travis challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of police officers' opinion testimony regarding his intoxication, and contended that the trial judge improperly considered personal knowledge from a judicial seminar. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction, that the officers' opinion testimony was permissible lay witness testimony, and that the trial judge's general knowledge from a seminar, in context, did not constitute reversible extra-judicial error.

Driving Under InfluenceSufficiency of EvidenceOpinion TestimonyLay WitnessJudicial NoticeExtra-Judicial KnowledgeBench TrialAppellate ReviewField Sobriety TestBreathalyser Test
References
21
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

Byrd v. Delasancha

Greta Byrd appealed a trial court's directed verdict in favor of Florenciano Delasancha in a negligence case stemming from an automobile collision. The trial court had ruled that expert medical testimony was required to prove causation for Byrd's injuries. Byrd argued that her lay testimony, supported by medical records and a clear sequence of events, was sufficient to establish causation. The appellate court concluded that general experience and common sense could enable a lay person to determine the causal relationship between the accident and Byrd's soft tissue trauma and other documented injuries without expert medical testimony. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Automobile AccidentNegligenceDirected VerdictCausationExpert Medical TestimonyLay TestimonySufficiency of EvidencePersonal InjurySoft Tissue TraumaReversed Judgment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarado v. Farah Manufacturing Co.

Jose Luis Lerma Alvarado sued Farah Manufacturing Company for retaliatory discharge, alleging a violation of Article 8307c after he filed a worker's compensation claim. During the trial, Alvarado presented testimony from an undisclosed rebuttal witness, Jacqueline Arrambide, which Farah objected to but the trial court allowed. The jury found in favor of Alvarado, awarding significant damages. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the trial court's decision, citing reversible error in the admission of the undisclosed testimony. This court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, ruling that the trial court erred by admitting Arrambide's testimony without a strict showing of good cause, thereby upholding the mandatory nature and automatic sanction of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215(5) regarding discovery disclosures.

Discovery Rule 215(5)Rebuttal WitnessUndisclosed Witness TestimonyGood Cause ExceptionSanctions for Discovery AbuseRetaliatory DischargeWorker's Compensation ClaimAbuse of DiscretionPretrial DisclosureTrial by Ambush
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

James Marcus Gee, an employee of Campbell Soup Company, sustained a leg injury and filed a workers' compensation action against Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, alleging a general injury. The trial court sided with Gee, finding total and permanent disability. However, the court of appeals reversed and remanded due to the admission of testimony from previously undisclosed witnesses. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the trial court's error regarding the undisclosed witness testimony, referencing Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b(6) and 215(5). The Court concluded that while the trial court erred by admitting the testimony without good cause, it did not constitute reversible error as the testimony was either non-controlling or cumulative. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further consideration of factual insufficiency points.

Undisclosed Witness TestimonyRules of Civil ProcedureGood Cause ExceptionHarmless ErrorReversible Error AnalysisExpert Witness DisclosureDiscovery SanctionsAppellate JurisdictionFactual Sufficiency ReviewWorkers' Compensation Claims
References
14
Case No. No. 11-08-00118-CV (Trial Court Cause No. A-117,770)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2010

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Sandra Cruz, Individually and as Next Friend of Cesar Cruz, Narada Cruz, and Miguel Cruz

This case from the Eleventh Court of Appeals in Texas addresses the calculation of an independent contractor's average weekly wage for workers' compensation benefits. The dispute centered on whether payments for equipment rental and supplies should be included in the wage calculation. The appeals panel, relying on Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Rule 128.1(c)(1), excluded these reimbursements, setting the average weekly wage at $354. However, the trial court and a jury, considering expert testimony on profit margin, determined a higher wage of $581. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, affirming that Rule 128.1, which excludes reimbursement payments from wage calculations, carries the same force as a statute. The court upheld the $354 average weekly wage and remanded the issue of attorney's fees.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageIndependent ContractorEquipment ReimbursementTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationAgency RulesAppellate ReviewContract LawEctor County
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 16,914 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