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. ADJ3473535
Regular
Jul 22, 2014

BARBARA DANGERFIELD vs. AMERICAN COMPANION & HOMEMAKER SERVICES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted South Lake Medical Center's Petition for Removal, rescinding a prior order that compelled specific witnesses to appear and threatened lien dismissal and sanctions. The Board found the order imposed undue prejudice on South Lake, mischaracterized a medical expert as a percipient witness, and lacked legal basis for lien dismissal based on witness non-appearance. While the request for WCJ disqualification was untimely, the trial date remains.

Petition for RemovalWCJ OrderPercipient WitnessMedical ExpertLien DismissalSanctionsWCAB Rule 10606Compromise and ReleaseChiropractic VisitsLabor Code 4604.5
References
2
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
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. ADJ10606418, ADJ10606429
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

Berta Jimenez (Ramirez) vs. EMPLOYBRIDGE, LLC dba SELECT FAMILY OF STAFFING COMPANIES, XL GROUP, administered by CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior Joint Findings and Award. The WCAB found that the lien claimant was not afforded due process as its witness failed to appear at two trials, but the reasons for his absence were not adequately adjudicated. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial judge for further proceedings to determine if there was good cause for the witness's absence. This decision does not rule on the validity of the lien or the witness's reasons for absence, only on the prior award of costs to the defendant.

MPNFunctional Capacity EvaluationLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWCJDue processWCAB Rule 10842Substantial evidenceCompromise and Release
References
4
Case No. ADJ3271362 (LAO 0873186) ADJ665746 (MON 0351716) ADJ6595399
Regular
Jun 07, 2017

MARIA MONTALVO vs. FAA FIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, OAK RIVER INSURANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANY, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPNAY, AMERICAN CLAIMS

A lien claimant petitioned to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) because her husband previously represented a defendant in these matters for three years. The Appeals Board granted the petition, finding that the WCJ's husband's prior involvement creates an appearance of impropriety, regardless of his actual level of participation. This appearance of bias, coupled with the possibility that the husband could be a material witness, necessitates reassignment to another WCJ to ensure impartiality. The Board cited due process requirements and judicial ethics regarding the appearance of fairness in administrative proceedings.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ impartialityappearance of improprietyspouse attorneymaterial witnessCanon 3Code of Judicial Ethicsdue processneutral decision makerprior representation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.K.B. v. Eggleston

This Memorandum Order addresses a motion filed by defendants Verna Eggleston, Doar, and Novello, seeking to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel, paralegal assistants, interns, and former attorney Reena Ganju from testifying in the action. The defendants argued that these individuals were essential fact witnesses for the plaintiffs’ 'Monell' claim, invoking the advocate-witness rule. The Court, presided over by District Judge RAKOFF, denied the motion in its entirety. The decision clarified that the advocate-witness rule, as embodied in New York Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 5-102, does not apply to non-lawyers or to lawyers not currently appearing for any party in the case. The Court also noted that Ms. Ganju's testimony and other documentary evidence would render counsel's testimony cumulative and not essential for the plaintiffs' case, though it admonished plaintiffs' counsel for an 'inappropriate' confusion of roles.

Advocate-Witness RuleDisqualification MotionLegal EthicsProfessional ResponsibilityMonell ClaimFederal CourtCounsel TestimonyParalegal TestimonyIntern TestimonyPrior Representation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ganci v. Berry

The petitioner sought habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, contending he was denied a fair trial due to prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence. He had been convicted in Suffolk County, New York, for two bank robberies. Petitioner claimed F.B.I. reports containing witness descriptions inconsistent with his appearance were wrongfully withheld, and that local prosecutors failed to disclose witness statements describing the robber's eye color as brown, despite his blue eyes. The court found that state prosecutors were not obligated to furnish F.B.I. reports they had never seen or possessed. However, it ruled that the local prosecutors should have disclosed the witness statements regarding eye color, as they were inconsistent with the petitioner's blue eyes. Despite this, the court determined there was no reasonable probability that this evidence would have changed the jury's verdict, given other strong identification evidence and corroborating factors related to the second robbery. Therefore, the petition for habeas corpus was denied.

Habeas CorpusBrady ViolationExculpatory EvidenceProsecutorial MisconductBank RobberyWitness IdentificationMateriality of EvidenceDue ProcessState Remedies ExhaustionFBI Investigation
References
12
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. ADJ928027
Regular
Feb 03, 2016

DAVID TRINH vs. TZENG LONG USA, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

This case involves the suspension of Mike Traw's privilege to appear before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) under Labor Code Section 4907. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to suspend due to non-payment of sanctions and failure to respond. While Professional Lien Services, Inc. (PLS) sought extensions, neither Traw nor PLS provided a substantive response. Consequently, Traw's appearance privilege is suspended for ninety days due to his failure to comply with the WCAB's orders. Further action against PLS may occur if ordered sanctions remain unpaid.

Labor Code Section 4907Decision After RemovalNotice of IntentionSuspension of PrivilegeProfessional Lien ServicesMike TrawAppeals Board En BancSanction OrderInterference with Judicial ProcessWCAB
References
0
Case No. ADJ9782813
Regular
Feb 13, 2017

ELVINA BRYANT vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the Department of Corrections' due process claim. The Board vacated a prior award finding applicant sustained an industrial injury and remanded the case for further proceedings. This decision allows the defendant to present evidence that witness statements were timely provided despite their exclusion at trial. The defendant must also justify the late appearance of a rebuttal witness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitationcorrectional officerindustrial injurypsychedue processwitness exclusiondiscoveryPre-Trial Conference StatementMandatory Settlement Conference
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,721 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