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

Porcelli v. PMA Associates

Claimant sought workers' compensation death benefits for her husband's death from respiratory failure, alleging it was an occupational disease from toxic chemical exposure during his 30+ years as a printer. A WCLJ initially awarded benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board later precluded the claimant's medical expert's report and testimony due to untimely filing under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (d) (12). This preclusion led the Board to find no established causal relationship, closing the case without benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding adequate support for precluding the expert's evidence due to procedural non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDeath BenefitsMedical ExpertReport PreclusionTimely FilingProcedural RuleCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ7859239, ADJ7859246
Regular
Mar 10, 2014

BELINDA BURTON vs. SAN LUIS OBISPO CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant seeks reconsideration of two decisions regarding permanent disability ratings, arguing she was denied the opportunity to rebut the defense's Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) expert report. The Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant was deprived of due process by not being afforded adequate time to obtain a rebuttal report to the defense's late-disclosed DFEC expert report. The original decisions are rescinded, and the matters are returned for further proceedings, allowing both parties time to obtain rebuttal and response reports from their respective DFEC experts. Discovery will then be closed, and the parties can request trial.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC expert reportRebuttal reportDue processWCAB Rule 10507Mandatory Settlement ConferenceVocational expert evidencePermanent disability ratingReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
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. 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

Giles v. Gi Yi

The dissenting opinion by Justice Whalen challenges the majority's interpretation of 22 NYCRR 202.17, which mandates personal injury plaintiffs to secure an expert witness report on causation and provide it to the defense prior to the defendant's medical examination of the plaintiff. Whalen argues this requirement is an undue burden and is not explicitly outlined within the regulation's scope. The dissent emphasizes that 22 NYCRR 202.17 (b) (1) only requires disclosure of reports from 'medical providers who have previously treated or examined the party seeking recovery,' distinct from expert reports generated solely for litigation purposes. Furthermore, Justice Whalen asserts that expert disclosure is governed by CPLR 3101 (d), which does not necessitate such early disclosure, and finds that the Supreme Court's decision to compel was an abuse of discretion, concluding that Nero v Kendrick was wrongly decided.

Expert Witness DisclosureCausationMedical ExaminationPersonal InjuryCivil Procedure Law and Rules (CPLR)Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court and County Court (22 NYCRR)Dissenting OpinionJudicial DiscretionPreclusionLitigation Expenses
References
2
Case No. ADJ1471935 (LAO 0872244)
Regular
Mar 26, 2014

JESUS RIOS vs. BRYAN JONES dba THE K GROUP, TOKIO MARINE, UNISURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to determine the admissibility of evidence obtained after the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC). The applicant sought to introduce supplemental medical reports from previously seen physicians and reports from new medical and vocational experts, arguing his condition worsened and the existing record was inadequate. The WCAB held that supplemental reports from the applicant's original physicians were admissible under Labor Code section 5502(d)(3) due to a changed condition, but reports from newly disclosed physicians and vocational experts were not. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision to exclude the latter evidence, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause or due diligence in obtaining it prior to the MSC.

Mandatory Settlement Conferencediscovery closurereopen recordsupplemental medical reportsvocational expertdue diligencegood causepermanent and stationaryAMA Guidesloss of earnings capacity
References
7
Case No. ADJ7682218
Regular
Aug 05, 2015

RICHARD ROSSI vs. BINKS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, ZENITH [RIVER STONE GROUP], HARTFORD INSURANCE, ACE INSURANCE COMPANY, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY INSURANCE, AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY, ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS, FINISHING BRANDS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address applicant's contentions regarding the admissibility of vocational expert reports and his disability level. The Board reversed the exclusion of applicant's vocational expert reports, finding they should have been admitted into evidence despite CIGA's claims of insufficient notice. Issues regarding applicant's permanent disability exceeding 79%, entitlement to additional attorney's fees, and CIGA's liability for the vocational expert's costs were deferred. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and decisions on these deferred issues.

CIGAvocational expertpermanent disabilityindustrial injurycancerlatency perioddue processsubstantial evidenceadmissibilityreconsideration
References
10
Case No. ADJ7399938 ADJ7068967
Regular
Jun 23, 2015

OLENA GARCIA vs. RESIDENCE INN, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further development of the record. The initial award found permanent total disability based on a vocational expert's opinion, but the Board found this opinion lacked substantial medical evidence. Specifically, the medical expert's supplemental report was not based on a current evaluation, and the vocational expert's conclusions, relying on that report, were therefore also flawed. The matter is remanded to allow for a current medical evaluation and reassessment of vocational rehabilitation and diminished earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityJoint Findings and AwardVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidenceScheduled RatingFunctional Capacity EvaluationAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionmentModified Work
References
0
Case No. ADJ8772254
Regular
Jul 20, 2017

Lorenzo Hernandez vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Lorenzo Hernandez's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original award of 24% permanent disability for a right shoulder injury. The applicant argued that a vocational expert's report should have rebutted the scheduled disability rating, but the Board found this report insufficient. Relying on *Ogilvie* and *Dahl*, the Board determined that an applicant's amenability to vocational rehabilitation precludes using vocational expert testimony to challenge a scheduled rating based on lost earning capacity. Therefore, the vocational expert's opinion was deemed not substantial evidence to overcome the QME's scheduled rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertQualified Medical EvaluatorScheduled RatingReconsiderationLabor Code §4660.1AMA Guides 5th EditionAmenability to Vocational RehabilitationDiminished Future Earning Capacity
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,909 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