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. ADJ7785733, ADJ7632939
Regular
Oct 01, 2012

JOHN SHEK vs. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER OF OAKLAND, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves applicant's petitions for reconsideration and removal concerning administrative orders that sustained objections to witness subpoenas and excused a witness's appearance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petitions as intermediate orders are not subject to such review. They also denied the removal petition, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board upheld the WCJ's decision to exclude undisclosed witnesses and excuse the excused witness based on the applicant's failure to comply with discovery and witness disclosure rules.

Pro sePetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCAB RulesSubpoena Duces TecumQuash SubpoenaExcuse Witness AppearanceMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureNewly Discovered Evidence
References
2
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

CARTIER, DIV. OF RICHEMONT v. Bertone Group

In a trademark infringement case, defendants moved to disqualify plaintiffs' litigation counsel, Tal Benschar, Esq., from serving as a 30(b)(6) deposition witness, citing New York Disciplinary Rule 5-102 which addresses the advocate-witness rule. The Court denied the defendants' motion, allowing Mr. Benschar to testify. The Court acknowledged the potential for confusion and conflicting loyalties when a lawyer acts as both a witness and an advocate, but found these dangers less likely in the pre-trial context. It also considered that Mr. Benschar was in the best position to provide the requested information, having supervised the investigation. However, the Court deferred its ruling on whether Mr. Benschar’s testimony would disqualify him from subsequently serving as trial counsel, noting that another attorney would be primary trial counsel.

Trademark InfringementDiscoveryFed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)Attorney DisqualificationAdvocate-Witness RuleEthical RulesDeposition TestimonyPre-Trial ProcedureNew York LawCounsel Representation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2002

In Re the United States for Material Witness Warrant

This Opinion and Order addresses the Court's authority to investigate potential government misrepresentations in the case of Abdallah Higazy, a prospective grand jury witness. Higazy was detained as a material witness after a transceiver was allegedly found in his hotel room and he purportedly confessed during a polygraph test, both of which later proved false. The Court determined it lacked criminal contempt jurisdiction over the FBI agent's conduct but affirmed its inherent supervisory power to inquire into and publicize the truth of such misconduct. The Court ordered the Government to complete its internal investigation and report findings by October 31, 2002, while directing the unsealing of most case documents, subject to government-proposed redactions by August 9, 2002, to protect grand jury secrecy. The government's internal investigation reports were ordered to remain sealed.

Material WitnessGrand Jury InvestigationFBI MisconductFalse ConfessionJudicial Supervisory PowerCriminal ContemptUnsealing DocumentsGovernment MisrepresentationsPolygraph TestSeptember 11 Investigation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Surety Corp. v. Rushing

The defendant appealed a jury verdict granting the plaintiff workers' compensation for total and permanent disability. The primary contention was the trial court's admission of an expert chiropractor witness not timely disclosed in pretrial interrogatories, violating Tex.R.Civ.P. 168. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the court's offer of a recess to depose the witness, which the defendant declined, and the defendant's failure to show prejudice. The court also affirmed the trial court's ruling on an objection during cross-examination of the chiropractor, noting the defendant's failure to lay a proper predicate for the introduction of an authoritative treatise. The defendant's remaining points of error were found to be without merit.

Discovery RulesExpert Witness TestimonyInterrogatoriesRule 168 ViolationWorkers' CompensationChiropractic EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedurePrejudice RequirementEvidentiary Foundation
References
14
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. W2011-00967-CCA-R3-PD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2013

Gregory Robinson v. State of Tennessee

This opinion addresses Gregory Robinson's appeal from the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Robinson was previously convicted of premeditated first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping, receiving a death sentence and twenty-five years, respectively. He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, Brady violations concerning undisclosed witness statements, and the unconstitutionality of the death penalty. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the post-conviction court's judgment, finding no reversible errors, including the lack of prejudice from counsel's deficiencies and the immateriality of the undisclosed evidence.

Capital PunishmentPost-Conviction ReliefIneffective Assistance of CounselBrady ViolationGang ActivityFirst Degree MurderAggravated KidnappingNeuropsychological EvaluationMitigation EvidenceDeath Penalty Appeal
References
98
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
Jun 02, 2008

Commissioner of State Insurance Fund v. F & V Distribution Co., LLC

The Commissioner of the State Insurance Fund (SIF) initiated an action to recover allegedly unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums from an undisclosed defendant. The core issue was whether certain 'outside drivers', who made deliveries for the defendant but were not on its payroll, should be considered employees for premium calculation purposes. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, after a nonjury trial, granted the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law, dismissing the complaint due to SIF's failure to establish a prima facie case. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that SIF did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an employer-employee relationship under either the 'control test' or the 'relative nature of the work test'. The SIF's auditors had not adequately investigated the relationship between the defendant's management and the outside drivers.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorsPrima Facie CaseInsurance Policy DisputePayroll CalculationAppellate ReviewNonjury TrialCPLR 4401State Insurance Fund
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Jones

Corey Jones, indicted for murder of a government witness, previously had his application for bail denied. He renewed his application based on new evidence regarding his co-defendant and brother, Jason Jones. This evidence, including work and travel records, strongly contradicted the government's unidentified eye-witness testimony, which initially implicated both brothers. The Court noted that the eye-witness's identification of Jason Jones was proven inaccurate, which materially affected the credibility of the same witness's identification of Corey Jones, especially since the witness knew both brothers by name. After reviewing all evidence, including testimony from alibi witnesses and a secondary victim, the Court found that the weight of the evidence now overcomes the presumption of detention. Consequently, Corey Jones's renewed application for bail was granted, contingent on suitable conditions.

BailPretrial DetentionWitness CredibilityAlibiNew EvidenceMurder ChargeSouthern District of New YorkCriminal ProcedureFederal CourtRelease Conditions
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,249 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