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

Poppenberg v. Reliable Maintainance Corp.

In this negligence action, the plaintiff sued Reliable Maintenance Corporation for injuries sustained due to a defective elevator. Reliable moved for summary judgment, asserting an affirmative defense that the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, arguing that the plaintiff was either an employee of a joint venture involving Reliable and Suburban Maintenance Corporation or a special employee of Reliable. Special Term denied the motion, citing unresolved questions of fact regarding the plaintiff's employment status. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding no evidence of a joint venture due to the lack of shared profits and losses among the corporations, despite common ownership. The court also concluded that there were insufficient facts to determine control over the plaintiff for either joint or special employment, necessitating a trial for full factual development.

Workers' CompensationJoint VentureSpecial EmploymentSummary JudgmentNegligenceEmployer LiabilityCorporate StructureControl TestAppellate ReviewFactual Dispute
References
11
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 81574[U]
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Santiago

This case addresses the admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness identification in a criminal assault trial. The defendant, Edwin Santiago, was identified by the victim and two other witnesses, but concerns arose regarding the reliability of these identifications due to factors like partial concealment, initial uncertainty, and potential post-event influences. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion to admit expert testimony, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding key expert testimony on eyewitness recognition memory and ordered a new trial, finding the corroborating evidence insufficient to bypass the need for such testimony.

Eyewitness IdentificationExpert Testimony AdmissibilityEyewitness Recognition MemoryMistaken IdentificationCriminal AssaultAppellate ReviewNew Trial OrderedCorroborating EvidenceFrye HearingConfidence-Accuracy Correlation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Insurance Co. of America v. Joseph Daniel Construction, Inc.

Royal Insurance Company of America, acting in subrogation for Patrick and Linda Magee, sued Joseph Daniel Construction for fire damage to the Magee's garage. The defendant, JDC, filed motions to preclude the testimony of the plaintiff's fire expert, Patrick J. McGinley, and for summary judgment. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, denied both motions. The decision focused on the admissibility of expert testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 104(a) and 702, applying the Daubert standard. The court found McGinley's testimony, based on NFPA 921 methodology, to be reliable and relevant, thus creating a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.

Expert Testimony AdmissibilityDaubert StandardFederal Rules of EvidenceSummary JudgmentFire InvestigationSubrogationConstruction NegligenceNFPA 921Reliability of EvidenceRelevance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
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. ADJ8442050
Regular
Dec 18, 2014

RAMON SANTIAGO vs. GRIFFITH COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE GROUP

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding no industrial injury to his spine. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original decision. The Board deferred to the administrative law judge's credibility findings, which found the applicant's testimony unreliable and non-credible. Conversely, the defense witnesses' testimony was deemed reliable and consistent, supporting the denial of the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderWCJindustrial injurylumbar spinethoracic spinecompensable presumptionnotice requirementscredibility determination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Rhianna R.

The Family Court's determination that the respondent sexually abused his daughter Rhianna and neglected his other daughter Nicole was affirmed. The findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, which included Rhianna's corroborated out-of-court statements, in camera testimony, a physical examination, and testimony from two pediatricians and a social worker. The consistency of Rhianna's statements enhanced their reliability. The court also concluded that the sexual abuse of Rhianna demonstrated a fundamental defect in the respondent's parenting abilities, creating an atmosphere detrimental to Nicole's well-being. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order without costs.

child sexual abusechild neglectcorroboration of testimonyout-of-court statementsin camera testimonyphysical examinationpediatrician testimonysocial worker testimonyparental responsibilityfamily court appeal
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 2,580 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