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. 2015-2418 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Remedial Med. Care, P.C. v. Park Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, Park Insurance Co., sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint filed by Remedial Medical Care, P.C., as assignee of Thomas Brown. The Civil Court initially denied the motion but found that the defendant had established timely mailing of denials. The Appellate Term modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendant for a bill of services rendered on August 23, 2012, as it was paid according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. However, for the remaining bills, the defendant failed to prove timely mailing of IME scheduling letters, thus failing to demonstrate that the IMEs were properly scheduled or that the assignor failed to appear. Therefore, the denial of summary judgment for the remaining claims was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault BenefitsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Timely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermCivil CourtDenial of ClaimFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ1611115 (STK 0117929)
Regular
Jul 25, 2016

THERESA POLLEX vs. CRESTWOOD HOSPITAL, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was taken from a non-final, interlocutory procedural order. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, which the Board adopted, adequately addressed the issues, and reconsideration remains an adequate remedy should a final adverse decision issue later. Therefore, the Board ordered the dismissal of reconsideration and denial of removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ7125024
Regular
Apr 07, 2014

JOSHUA INGMAN vs. GRANT'S BOBCAT AND HAULING, R4CORPORATION, INC., LABOR READY, CITY OF SACRAMENTO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, CASTLEPOINT NATIONAL INSURANCE, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund's (UEBTF) Petition for Removal. The Board found that the UEBTF failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's decision. Furthermore, the Board noted that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision ultimately issued. Given the significant delay in the applicant receiving benefits, the ongoing insurance coverage arbitration, and the UEBTF's available remedies for recovery, removal was deemed an inappropriate extraordinary remedy.

RemovalUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundUEBTFSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationInsurance CoverageArbitrationLabor Code Section 2750.5Meier case
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. ADJ526691, ADJ3636578
Regular
Mar 28, 2013

Jitka Van Dyne vs. United Airlines, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for removal. The WCAB adopted the Judge's report, stating removal is an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. The applicant failed to object to the declaration of readiness and has an adequate remedy at trial for evidentiary disputes. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceDeclaration of ReadinessAdmissibility of EvidenceDue DiligenceAneurysmIndustrial InjuryLay Opinion
References
3
Case No. ADJ3593389 (VNO 0327097) ADJ1373027 (VNO 0327930) ADJ3316700 (VNO 0326839) ADJ4178443 (VNO 0326834) ADJ974570 (VNO 0326833)
Regular
Apr 25, 2019

MARIA YRIBE vs. U. S. SALES CORPORATION

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denies Maria Yribe's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not met here. The Board found that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision is adverse. Therefore, the petition is denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadministrative law judgeextraordinary remedyfinal decisionadverse to petitionerCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. ADJ15203597; ADJ15203084; ADJ15203598
Regular
Aug 04, 2025

FRANCISCO AGUIRRE vs. CALIFORNIA DRYWALL CO.; THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a Petition for Removal. The Board denied the petition, stating that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted. The petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor did they show that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the Board concluded that the petition should be denied.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportAppeals BoardCalifornia Drywall Co.The Hartford
References
3
Case No. ADJ9517344
Regular
Mar 01, 2019

Craig Marcom vs. Twin Rivers Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal in Case No. ADJ9517344. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found the applicant failed to demonstrate these grounds and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportFinal DecisionAdverse DecisionCase ADJ9517344
References
2
Case No. ADJ11897867; ADJ18407734
Regular
Apr 09, 2025

URSULA TSE vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UC BERKELEY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a Petition for Removal. The Board reviewed the allegations in the petition and the WCJ's report. They decided to deny the removal, stating that it is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted. The petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy, as required for removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeUC BerkeleySedgwick Claims Management ServicesAdjudication Numbers
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,021 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