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. 709-95
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 1996

Schutz v. State

The appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of his six-year-old daughter. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, but the appellant petitioned for discretionary review, arguing the trial court erroneously admitted expert testimony regarding the child complainant's credibility concerning manipulation and fantasy. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the judgment, holding that such expert testimony constitutes an impermissible direct comment on the truthfulness of specific allegations, thereby invading the province of the jury. The court distinguished between admissible general testimony on a witness's capacity/disposition for truthfulness and inadmissible expert conclusions on specific allegations.

Aggravated Sexual AssaultChild Witness CredibilityExpert Testimony AdmissibilityManipulationFantasyTruthfulness of WitnessRules of EvidenceAppellate ReviewReversal of ConvictionChild Abuse
References
113
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

In re Sanchez

The case addresses the admissibility of expert psychological testimony regarding a child's truthfulness in a child abuse proceeding. During the examination of Dr. Jonathan Kurfirst, a psychologist testifying for the petitioner, the Assistant Corporation Counsel asked for his opinion on whether the child, Sondra, was telling the truth about sexual abuse allegations against her uncle and aunt. The respondents objected. Judge Jeffry H. Gallet sustained the objection, ruling that determining witness credibility is the sole responsibility of the court as the finder of fact. The court emphasized that while experts can testify about a party's ability to recall or report, they cannot directly vouch for a witness's truthfulness.

Child AbuseExpert TestimonyCredibility of WitnessPsychological EvaluationFamily CourtAdmissibility of EvidenceHearsay CorroborationDSM-III-RBorderline Personality DisorderSexual Molestation
References
33
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

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. 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
Jun 09, 1999

Gonzalez v. United Parcel Service

A jury verdict in defendant's favor led to the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint. The judgment, entered on June 9, 1999, was unanimously affirmed. The court found that a third-party action initiated by the defendant against the plaintiff's employer was properly discontinued via a stipulation, and the plaintiff's consent was not required as they were not a party to, nor interested in, the action. Furthermore, the discontinuance and prior court rulings did not prevent the plaintiff from subpoenaing and examining the employer's president. The plaintiff's claim regarding the lack of an interested witness charge for a co-worker's deposition testimony was deemed unpreserved for appellate review; even if considered, any prejudice was minimal since the testimony was used to establish expert reliance rather than for its truth.

Jury verdictComplaint dismissalThird-party actionStipulation of partiesWitness examinationDeposition testimonyAppellate reviewInterested witness chargeTrial court errorCase affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Co. of North America v. Grider

David C. Grider, a subcontractor, sued Western Company of North America, another subcontractor, for personal injuries sustained when he was struck by a high-pressure hose during a gas well flushing operation. The injury occurred because Western Company's employees failed to attach a rigid stalk to the hose, a violation of company procedure. A jury found Western Company negligent, awarding Grider damages. Western Company appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly excluded testimony where a 'company man' (Richard Phinney, agent of the well owner) stated the stalk was unnecessary, which was crucial for their 'borrowed servant' defense and to explain their employees' conduct. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, ruling that the excluded testimony was not hearsay as it was offered to explain the employees' actions, not for the truth of the statement, and its exclusion constituted reversible error.

NegligencePersonal InjurySubcontractor LiabilityHearsay ExceptionEvidence ExclusionBorrowed Servant DoctrineReversible ErrorTexas LawGas Well OperationWorkplace Safety
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,757 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