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
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. 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
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1991

In re Lenny McN.

The Family Court in Bronx County issued an order on November 18, 1991, directing the disclosure of a social worker's entire casework file to an intervenor-respondent. This social worker was called as a witness by the law guardian for the infants. The appellate court unanimously reversed this order, finding the social worker's testimony regarding prior file use too equivocal to support a wholesale waiver of confidentiality and work product privileges. The court emphasized the protection against disclosure of mental impressions of a party's representative, classifying a social worker employed by a law guardian as such a representative. The case was remanded for a continuation of the dispositional hearing, with further discovery limited unless the law guardian seeks to elicit an adverse expert opinion from the social worker.

Family LawDisclosureConfidentiality PrivilegeWork Product ImmunitySocial Worker TestimonyChild CustodyFamily Court ProceedingDiscovery LimitationsAppellate ReviewWaiver of Privilege
References
2
Case No. ADJ9567706
Regular
Oct 09, 2015

Sally Nunes vs. CITY OF SANTA MARIA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the medical record regarding the applicant's psyche injury, as the WCJ's finding relied too heavily on the applicant's perceptions rather than actual employment events. The Board upheld the exclusion of the defendant's witness due to their failure to timely provide discovery, deeming it an appropriate sanction for a discovery violation. The case is returned to the trial level for the physician to clarify causation and for the WCJ to issue a new decision on all submitted issues. This action is necessary because the initial medical opinion lacked sufficient analysis of actual work events and the applicant's undisclosed personal history impacted the original findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryPsycheAustin O'DellWitness StatementDiscovery ObligationDue ProcessRolda v. Pitney BowesLabor Code section 3208.3
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04146 [185 AD3d 896]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2020

Casilari v. Condon

Jose Casilari, an injured plaintiff, along with his wife derivatively, brought an action against Zachary F. Condon, the owner of a single-family home, after Casilari fell from a deck during renovations. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 (6) claims but denied summary judgment for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendant. The appellate court found the defendant established, prima facie, that he did not supervise the work and lacked notice of the dangerous condition, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, partly due to the Supreme Court's error in considering an undisclosed witness affidavit.

Personal InjuryLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityOwner LiabilityWork Site SafetyDiscovery SanctionsUndisclosed Witness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Vega

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree after a jury trial in Bronx County, presided over by Justice Lawrence Tonetti, and sentenced to 4 to 12 years. This judgment was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The appellate court found the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, crediting the complainant's unequivocal eyewitness identification and description of the getaway vehicle which led to the defendant's arrest. The People were not obligated to present testimony from a non-identifying witness to the Grand Jury, especially given the defense's awareness and the People's efforts to locate the witness. Additionally, the defendant's claims regarding jury charge errors were unpreserved for appellate review, and his belated request for a missing witness charge was denied as untimely and for failure to establish witness availability.

RobberyFirst DegreeJury TrialWitness IdentificationGetaway VehicleGrand JuryJury ChargeAppellate ReviewUntimely RequestWitness Unavailability
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 871 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