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

Bowen v. County of Westchester

Plaintiffs Indira Bowen and her children alleged Fourth Amendment rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New York Constitution, along with common law torts, against the County of Westchester, the Town of Greenburgh, and John Doe officers. The claims arose from an October 7, 2004 search of their home by Greenburgh police and Westchester probation officers, who were executing a search order for probationer Roylin Fairclough. Plaintiffs contended the search order was based on inaccurate information regarding Fairclough's residence and that Greenburgh officers used excessive force. The court granted summary judgment for both municipal defendants, finding no underlying constitutional violation by the probation officer nor any municipal policy or custom causing the alleged deprivations. Additionally, the court found no evidence of excessive force linked to Greenburgh's policy and ordered the plaintiffs to show cause for why the claims against the unidentified John Doe defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Fourth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983New York ConstitutionCivil RightsSummary JudgmentMunicipal LiabilityMonell ClaimProbation SearchExcessive ForceDeliberate Indifference
References
61
Case No. ADJ1034572
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

TROY BOWEN vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision by an Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The applicant, Troy Bowen, alleged his employer, the Regents of the University of California, violated Labor Code § 132a by retaliating against him, leading to his termination. The WCJ found the applicant's allegations of discrimination and his version of events not credible. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, deferring to the judge's credibility determinations, and found no violation of Labor Code § 132a based on the evidence.

Labor Code § 132aPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJcredibility determinationdiscriminationretaliatory conductterminationrestricted areaindustrial injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ7760800
Regular
Jan 24, 2012

FRANK BOWEN vs. HYATT REGENCY IRVINE, GALLAGHER BASSETT ORANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Frank Bowen's Petition for Reconsideration in case ADJ7760800. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, giving great weight to their credibility determination. Therefore, the petition was denied based on the reasoning provided by the WCJ.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ's Opinion on DecisionReport and RecommendationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.credibility findingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder Denying ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendant
References
1
Case No. VNO 388892, VNO 388897
Regular
Dec 21, 2007

DARRELL BOWEN vs. GALPIN MOTORS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision regarding Darrell Bowen's claim against Galpin Motors and Liberty Mutual. While affirming the original decision, the Board amended one finding of fact to assess a 25% penalty for unreasonable delay in providing medical treatment, not exceeding $10,000. The parties were directed to adjust this penalty with jurisdiction reserved.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationWCJ reportMedical treatment delayPenalty assessmentUnreasonably delayedJurisdiction reservedOpinion and OrderDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'KEEFE v. Bowen

Josephine O’Keefe and Louis Scheibeler, patients at Belair Nursing Home, sought Medicare Part A benefits for post-hospital extended care, which were denied by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. They initiated a proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1395ff(b) to review these final determinations. The court determined that the absence of a physician's certification, a prerequisite for benefits under Medicare regulations, compelled the affirmance of the denial of benefits. The decision highlighted that neither the initial hospital physicians nor the Belair Nursing Home physicians provided the required daily skilled nursing care certification. The court also examined the role of DMS-1 forms, primarily used for Medicaid, and the challenges faced by Utilization Review Committees in New York due to the scarcity of appropriate intermediate care facilities.

Medicare BenefitsPost-Hospital Extended CareSkilled Nursing CarePhysician CertificationDenial of BenefitsUtilization Review CommitteeMedicaid ActCustodial CareHealth and Human ServicesRegulatory Compliance
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santiago v. Bowen

The plaintiff, a 58-year-old man with an 8th-grade education and a history of physical labor, sought Supplemental Security Income (SSI) disability benefits after injuring his lumbar spine in 1986. His treating chiropractor, Dr. Serafín Izquierdo, opined he was totally disabled due to acute low back derangement, a possible herniated disc, and other related conditions. A consultative physician, Dr. Shu-mofsky, found minimal x-ray findings but noted severe pain during a straight leg raising test. The ALJ initially found the plaintiff capable of light work, a decision upheld by the Appeals Council. The District Court reversed this decision, ruling that the treating chiropractor's opinion on disability, within their field of expertise, should be given binding effect, especially when supported by evidence and not substantially contradicted. The court found Dr. Izquierdo's opinion uncontradicted and remanded the case for the calculation and disbursement of benefits.

Disability benefitsSupplemental Security Income (SSI)Chiropractor's opinionTreating physician ruleMedical evidenceLumbar spine injuryResidual functional capacityAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilReversal and remand
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. Bowen

Plaintiff Jose Alvarez challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. The court reviewed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court determined that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to ensure Alvarez's voluntary waiver of counsel, did not inform him of his rights to call and cross-examine witnesses, and inadequately developed the record. Specifically, the ALJ's questioning of a medical expert and a vocational expert was deemed insufficient, and the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert was flawed. Consequently, the court reversed the Secretary's decision and remanded the case for a new hearing consistent with its opinion.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeRemandRight to CounselDue ProcessCross-examinationVocational ExpertMedical EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barriger v. Bowen

This memorandum decision and order addresses an application for attorney's fees by plaintiff Bessie L. Barriger, following a court reversal of a Social Security Administration decision that awarded her past-due benefits. Barriger sought fees under both 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), with the defendant Secretary of Health and Human Services challenging certain billed hours. The court ruled that hours spent on a default motion, which directly related to the substantive claim due to the government's delay, were compensable, and found the time spent on the fee application reasonable. However, clerical tasks such as mailing and serving were deemed non-compensable. The court further clarified that the fee limitation under § 406 does not restrict EAJA recovery, establishing a protocol for attorneys to refund the smaller amount to the client when both fee awards are received. The final award for EAJA fees was $3,244.89, with administrative fees to be disbursed separately.

Attorney's FeesEAJASocial Security BenefitsContingency FeeDefault JudgmentJudicial ReviewFee ApplicationPrevailing PartyStatutory InterpretationFederal Court
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Phillips v. Bowen

This Memorandum-Decision and Order addresses the Defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial, following a jury verdict awarding the unnamed Plaintiff $400,000 for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 retaliation claim. Presiding Judge Kahn previously allowed the Defendants to refile their motion due to a procedural defect. The Defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions on burden of proof and substantive law, the admission of evidence, and the excessiveness of the emotional damages award. The Court, citing Second Circuit precedents and declining to adopt First Circuit standards, denied both motions, affirming the jury's findings and the damage award.

Judgment as a Matter of LawRule 50(b) MotionRule 50(a) MotionNew Trial MotionRule 59 Motion42 U.S.C. § 1983 ClaimFirst Amendment ProtectionRetaliation ClaimJury Verdict ReviewEmotional Damages
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hurley v. Bowen

Plaintiff William J. Hurley brought this action to review a final determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, denying payment for skilled nursing facility care under Medicare Part A from October 2 to October 23, 1981. Hurley, who suffered a head injury, had his acute care benefits terminated by the hospital's Utilization Review Committee. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) twice denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council, on the grounds that he neither required nor received reimbursable skilled nursing facility care. The court affirmed the ALJ's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence. It noted medical advisor testimony that the care was not inherently complex or exclusively require a skilled nursing facility, and declined to apply the 'treating physician rule' to Dr. Goodman's ambiguous letter.

MedicareHealth InsuranceSkilled Nursing FacilityCustodial CareHospital InsuranceFederal BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilSubstantial EvidenceCerebrovascular Accident
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 23 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