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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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
Jul 26, 2006

Velez v. Daar

In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff sought damages for psychological and emotional injuries stemming from a failure to diagnose thyroid cancer. The plaintiff engaged in psychotherapy with Dr. Velma Stade and initially limited the disclosure of related notes. However, during a deposition, the plaintiff disclosed that factors beyond the thyroid cancer, such as work environment and family issues, contributed to his psychological symptoms. Consequently, the defendant sought full disclosure of Dr. Stade's notes, arguing that the plaintiff had waived his psychotherapist-client privilege. The Supreme Court reversed the motion court's protective order, determining that the plaintiff had indeed waived the CPLR 4508 social worker-patient confidentiality privilege by placing his psychological condition in controversy, thereby making the disclosure of the sensitive records warranted.

medical malpracticepsychotherapyconfidentiality privilegewaiver of privilegeCPLR 4508psychological injuriesemotional distressthyroid cancerdisclosure of recordssocial worker-patient privilege
References
2
Case No. 2020-03-0716
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2023

Taylor, Ariel v. Coca Cola Bottling Company

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer asserts the trial court erred in concluding it failed to comply with a scheduling order and in excluding its vocational expert. The employee suffered a compensable back injury and settled an initial claim. When his initial compensation period expired, he filed for additional disability benefits. A scheduling order required expert witness disclosure by May 5, 2023, but did not specify expert report exchange. The employer identified its vocational expert, Ms. Michelle Weiss, via email in March 2023 and provided her report in May, after the May 5 disclosure deadline but before other deadlines. The trial court excluded Ms. Weiss's testimony. The Appeals Board reversed, finding the term 'disclose' in the scheduling order ambiguous, especially given later deadlines for discovery and identification of testifying witnesses. The Board concluded the employer's email identifying the expert complied with the May 5 deadline.

vocational expertexpert witness disclosurescheduling orderdiscovery disputeevidence exclusionappellate reviewabuse of discretionambiguous court orderremandworkers' compensation law
References
5
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

LaValle v. State

Michelle LaValle, a former employee at New York State Juvenile Detention Centers, filed a lawsuit alleging sexual abuse and harassment by supervisors and co-workers during her employment from 1997 to 1998. She sought to obtain all investigative information gathered by the Office of the State Inspector General of New York (OSIG) regarding her allegations. OSIG opposed the disclosure, arguing that protecting the confidentiality of its investigative files is crucial to encourage witness cooperation and uphold its mission to investigate corruption and abuse in state agencies. The court, balancing the interests of both parties and after an in camera examination, partially granted LaValle's motion for a subpoena duces tecum. It ordered OSIG to disclose telephone and time records from the facilities but denied immediate access to witness statements, with leave to renew this request before jury selection, emphasizing the need to protect witness confidentiality while ensuring fairness to the plaintiff.

Sexual HarassmentSexual AbuseState EmployeeInvestigative FilesConfidentialitySubpoena Duces TecumDisclosureWitness StatementsExecutive OrderGovernment Privilege
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Lutheran Medical Center

Felix Rivera sued Lutheran Medical Center (LMC) and Myles Davis for retaliatory and discriminatory discharge under New York State and City Human Rights Laws, alleging termination due to his association with a sister-in-law who previously sued LMC. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the claim under the NYSHRL, finding it does not support association discrimination, but denied dismissal for the NYCHRL claim, which explicitly allows such a cause of action. Separately, plaintiff moved to disqualify defendants' law firm, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLR, for improperly soliciting non-party witnesses. The court found that Morgan Lewis violated professional conduct rules by soliciting these witnesses to gain a tactical advantage, ordering their disqualification from representing four specific individuals and mandating disclosure of this to the witnesses. The overall decision represents a partial victory for both sides, with motions granted and denied in part.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscriminatory DischargeHuman Rights LawNYSHRLNYCHRLAssociation DiscriminationAttorney DisqualificationProfessional ResponsibilityConflict of InterestWitness Solicitation
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,634 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