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. E2003-02124-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2004

Jon E. Shell v. D. Scott King

Jon and Rebecca Shell, as plaintiffs, sued D. Scott King for the dissolution of their limited liability company (The Big Red Barn, LLC) and breach of fiduciary duties. A Special Master found King negligent and in breach, recommending a judgment that included some attorney and expert witness fees. The Trial Court confirmed this report. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed King's liability for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. However, the appellate court modified the judgment to hold King responsible for all expert witness fees, a larger portion of attorney fees related to expert assistance, and all court costs, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine appellate attorney fees.

Limited Liability Company (LLC)Breach of Fiduciary DutyNegligenceDissolution of CompanySpecial Master ReportAttorney FeesExpert Witness FeesCosts on AppealRespondeat SuperiorDelegation of Duties
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jenkins v. General Motors Corp.

The defendant, General Motors Corporation, moved the court for an order granting costs and expert witness fees related to discovery, specifically for depositions of their expert witnesses by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel, Clements & Ducharme, P.C., disclaimed responsibility, arguing that the plaintiffs themselves were solely liable for these costs. The court analyzed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) and the attorney-client relationship, noting that plaintiffs' attorneys had previously advanced fees, indicating an intent to incur liabilities jointly with their clients. The court agreed with the defendant's policy argument to prevent discovery abuses. Consequently, the court ordered both the plaintiffs and their counsel, Clements & Ducharme, P.C., to be held jointly and severally liable for the $5,350.25 in discovery costs and fees, entering judgment in favor of General Motors Corporation.

Discovery CostsExpert Witness FeesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C)Attorney LiabilityClient LiabilityJoint and Several LiabilityRetainer AgreementAgency RelationshipPrincipal-AgentLegal Fees
References
4
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. 10-15-00255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2015

Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC, and Michael C. Evans v. Jonathan Sistrunk

This document is a Docketing Statement (Civil) filed in the Sixth Court of Appeals, Texarkana, Texas, on August 12, 2015. It pertains to an appeal initiated by Asset, Consulting Experts, LLC and Michael C. Evans against Jonathan Sistrunk. The statement outlines details of a default judgment signed on May 8, 2015, which awarded $14,000.00 in actual damages, $40,000.00 in punitive damages, and $19,000.00 in attorney's fees. The appellants intend to challenge the judgment on grounds including failure to serve process, and the record's support for actual, exemplary, and attorney's fees, as well as post-judgment interest. The document also includes information regarding legal representation, the trial court (170th Judicial District Court, McLennan County, Texas), and a recommendation for mediation.

Default JudgmentAppealService of ProcessDamagesAttorney's FeesPost-Judgment InterestTexas LawCivil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJurisdiction
References
0
Case No. M2000-02902-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2003

Rebecca McMurry v. Metro Government of Nashville

Rebecca McMurry, an employee, sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County after a slip and fall at work resulted in a knee injury. She sought damages under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act for lost earning capacity, pain, and suffering. The trial court awarded $24,000, attributing fault to Metro but finding the injury an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, and also awarded $2,858.30 in discretionary costs, excluding a $900 expert trial preparation fee. McMurry appealed, arguing for increased damages and the inclusion of the expert fee. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding of exacerbation and confirming that expert witness preparation fees are not recoverable discretionary costs.

Governmental Tort LiabilitySlip and FallKnee InjuryPre-existing ConditionExacerbation of InjuryDamages AwardAppellate ReviewExpert Witness FeesDiscretionary CostsCausation
References
33
Case No. ADJ4609262
Regular
Mar 13, 2009

TERRY KING vs. GREAT PACIFIC, THE NEWS GROUP, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves a truck driver who sustained a knee injury. The original award found 25% permanent disability, which the defendant argued was unsupported and that the applicant's expert witness fees were improperly awarded. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the legal framework for rebutting the 2005 permanent disability rating schedule. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original award and returned the case for further proceedings to apply guidance from recent en banc decisions on rebutting impairment and diminished future earning capacity ratings. The issue of expert witness fees was deferred for later consideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityDiminished Future Earning CapacityExpert Witness FeesAgreed Medical ExaminerAMA GuidesAlmaraz
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stanley Stores, Inc. v. Chavana

This is an age discrimination case where Stanley Stores appealed a judgment in favor of Chavana. Stanley Stores argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to untimely filing of a discrimination complaint by Chavana with the Texas Commission on Human Rights, and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for age discrimination, as well as the awards for front pay, back pay, and expert witness fees. The court affirmed the trial court's finding of jurisdiction and intentional age discrimination, and upheld the back pay award. However, the court reversed and rendered the award for expert witness fees and remanded the front pay award for reformulation, specifically requiring periodic payments rather than a lump sum.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationFront PayBack PayExpert Witness FeesJurisdictionTimely ComplaintTexas CHRAEEOCPrima Facie Discrimination
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gans

This court opinion addresses whether a certified social worker can be qualified as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding a defendant's mental capacity to proceed and future competency. The defense sought to qualify Hillel Bodek, a certified social worker specializing in forensic clinical social work, as an expert witness for these purposes. The court meticulously reviewed the qualifications of clinical social workers, acknowledging their critical role in the diagnosis of mental disorders, including their involvement in the development of the DSM III. Despite statutory provisions in CPL article 730 outlining who may serve as psychiatric examiners, the court emphasized that other appropriately trained and experienced experts can also offer testimony on competence. Ultimately, the court ruled in the affirmative, concluding that certified social workers with demonstrated training and supervised clinical experience in diagnosis and capacity assessment are qualified to provide expert testimony on these crucial issues.

Expert Witness QualificationCertified Social WorkerMental Capacity AssessmentCompetency to ProceedForensic Mental HealthDiagnostic AssessmentPrognostic StatementsCriminal Procedure Law Article 730DSM IIINon-Medical Expert Testimony
References
13
Case No. E2020-01534-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2022

Edna Gergel v. James Gergel

This divorce case involved an appeal by the husband regarding the distribution of the marital estate, denial of alimony, the wife's sole decision-making authority over their child, and awards of attorney's fees and discretionary costs to the wife. The husband also contested the finding that he was voluntarily unemployed and the admission of certain expert testimony. The Court of Appeals largely affirmed the trial court's judgment, including the equitable distribution of marital property, denial of alimony, and the wife's sole decision-making authority. However, the court vacated a portion of the discretionary costs related to expert witness fees and slightly reduced court reporter fees, remanding for further determination on these specific cost awards. The wife's request for attorney's fees on appeal was denied.

divorcemarital estate divisionalimony in futurochild custodyparenting planexpert witness testimonypsychological evaluationmalingeringattorney's feesdiscretionary costs
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 7,098 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