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

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

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
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

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. VNO 0272543, VNO 0246317
Regular
May 12, 2008

JOSE ACEVES vs. FERNANDO AUTO SALES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the State Compensation Insurance Fund's petition for removal, overturning an interim decision that disallowed direct testimony from defendant's medical witnesses. The Board ruled that the restrictions on direct medical witness testimony in Rules 10606 and 10727 do not apply when physicians are testifying as percipient witnesses to issues like billing practices or illegal supervision of aides, rather than about the treatment of specific injured workers. Therefore, the testimony of these physicians is now allowed at trial.

Removal petitionInterim Findings and Awarddirect examinationmedical witnessespercipient witnessesadministrative proceduresbilling practicesscope of practiceLabor Code section 5708WCAB Rules 10606
References
0
Case No. ADJ8414182
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

VICTOR LEDESMA, (VICTOR GOMEZ LEDESMA) vs. GROUP MANUFACTURING SERVICES, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a left ankle and foot injury. The defendant sought reconsideration of the decision, arguing the applicant's testimony was less credible, the claim was barred as post-termination, exhibits were improperly admitted, and a defense witness was wrongly excluded. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report. The judge found the applicant's testimony credible, noting inconsistencies and misrepresentations in the defendant's arguments and witness testimonies. Specifically, the judge determined the termination date was not a bar, the admission of exhibits was proper, and the exclusion of the unlisted rebuttal witness was warranted.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.denial of reconsiderationoccupational injuryleft ankle and footdeburrerdenied claim
References
2
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McDowell

The defendant, Glenn R. McDowell, facing charges including second-degree murder, moved to suppress the testimony of an eyewitness, Johnnie T. Williams, who had been hypnotized. The defense argued that the hypnosis violated McDowell's due process rights by potentially distorting the witness's memory and hindering cross-examination. Justice William J. Burke reviewed the hypnotic session and expert testimony, assessing whether established safeguards for such procedures were met. The court found substantial compliance with these safeguards and determined that the hypnosis did not irreversibly alter the witness's memory or constitute an improper identification procedure. Consequently, the motion to suppress the witness's statements and potential trial testimony was denied, with the court concluding that hypnosis generally impacts credibility rather than admissibility.

Hypnosis AdmissibilityWitness MemoryDue ProcessCriminal Procedure LawMotion to SuppressCross-Examination RightsEyewitness TestimonySuggestibilityLegal SafeguardsNew York Penal Law
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garza v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This workers' compensation case involves an appellant, Garza, who suffered a total and permanent loss of the use of both feet due to an on-the-job injury. A jury found that Garza would require future nursing services, valuing them at $80,000, but the trial court subsequently disregarded this finding. Garza appealed, challenging both the disregard of the nursing services award and the trial court's decision to allow testimony from an undisclosed witness, Humberto Castellanos. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Castellanos's testimony was cumulative and therefore harmless. Furthermore, the court held that under Texas law (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307 § 5), future nursing services not actually furnished before the judgment are not recoverable, even if provided by family members.

Workers' CompensationJury VerdictFuture Nursing ServicesDiscovery SanctionsUndisclosed WitnessCumulative TestimonyStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppellate ReviewMedical Expenses
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,407 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