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

Criep v. Sentry Insurance

Plaintiff Leo Criep filed a lawsuit against Sentry Insurance alleging malicious prosecution, witness tampering, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, stemming from a prior lawsuit Sentry filed against Criep. The Court dismissed the malicious prosecution and witness tampering claims. However, the Court found Sentry liable for abuse of process, concluding that Sentry had an ulterior motive to coerce Criep's testimony against co-defendants and used improper tactics, including a false affidavit. Sentry was also found liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Court awarded Criep $25,000 in actual damages, of which $18,280.50 was allocated to the Texas Medical Liability Trust, and $100,000 in exemplary damages.

Abuse of processIntentional infliction of emotional distressMalicious prosecutionWitness tamperingTortious interferenceWorkers' compensation insuranceSubrogationExemplary damagesActual damagesAttorney misconduct
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
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. 14-03-00412-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2003

Johnson, Raymond Lee v. State

Raymond Lee Johnson appealed his felony conviction for tampering with a witness, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence. Johnson, an MTA employee, offered a co-worker $300 to drop an assault charge and later attempted to have him sign an affidavit and mutual release, which the co-worker refused. The trial court found Johnson guilty, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The court found ample evidence supporting Johnson's intent to influence the witness, based on testimonies from the co-worker and a detective, despite Johnson's claims of offering money for inconvenience.

Witness tamperingFelony convictionSufficiency of evidenceCriminal appealAssaultIntent to influenceProspective witnessTrial court verdictCredibilityJudgment affirmed
References
7
Case No. E2015-02262-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2019

State of Tennessee v. Barbara Mae Potter

Barbara Mae Potter was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and tampering with evidence, arising from the murders of Billy Clay Payne and Billie Jean Hayworth. The crimes were the culmination of a year-long online and in-person feud between the Potter family and the victims. The defendant, her husband Buddy, and Jamie Curd conspired in the murders, with Buddy being the shooter and Jamie assisting. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the murder and tampering convictions, reinstated the conspiracy conviction, and remanded the case for sentencing on the conspiracy charge. The court addressed issues including venue, prosecutorial conduct, witness testimony, sufficiency of evidence, and motion to sever.

Premeditated MurderConspiracy to MurderTampering with EvidenceCriminal ResponsibilityOnline HarassmentCyberbullyingSocial Media FeudChange of VenueProsecutorial MisconductSufficiency of Evidence
References
38
Case No. 11-11-00077-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2013

Joel Ramirez v. State of Texas

Joel Ramirez was convicted of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence after a bench trial and sentenced to forty-five years imprisonment due to a prior felony conviction. He appealed the conviction and sentence on four issues. The case originated from Ramirez taking photographs of young girls in a store and then discarding a digital media card when confronted by a witness, subsequently leading to his arrest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conviction for tampering with evidence. It also found no abuse of discretion in denying Ramirez's motion for continuance or his request to withdraw his jury waiver. Furthermore, the court declined to address the constitutionality of the improper photography statute, as Ramirez was not indicted or convicted under that specific charge in this case.

Criminal LawTampering with Physical EvidenceImproper PhotographySufficiency of EvidenceJury WaiverMotion for ContinuanceAppellate ReviewConstitutional VaguenessDigital Media CardFelony Enhancement
References
15
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

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 1,206 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