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

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The plaintiff, Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C., sought $950 in first-party no-fault benefits for biofeedback medical services provided to its assignor for lower back and chronic pain syndrome. The central issue at trial was the medical necessity of these services under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1). The plaintiff established a prima facie case with expert testimony from a board-certified neurologist affirming the medical appropriateness of biofeedback. The defendant insurance company failed to present admissible evidence to disprove medical necessity, as its expert was deemed incompetent to testify on biofeedback for back pain. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, awarding judgment for $950 along with statutory costs, interest, and attorney's fees.

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityBiofeedback treatmentExpert testimonyDirected verdictInsurance lawChronic pain syndromeBack injuryCPT codesBurden of proof
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2006

Taylor v. New York University Medical Center

The court reversed an order and granted judgment to defendants in a sexual orientation discrimination case. Plaintiff's employment was terminated, which he alleged was discriminatory. Defendants, New York University Medical Center (NYUMC) and Ferrara, successfully argued that the termination was due to legitimate budgetary concerns and departmental reorganization, not discrimination. The court found that the plaintiff failed to rebut the defendants' nondiscriminatory reason or prove that discrimination was the real motive, noting that Ferrara was not the decision-maker in the termination. The case was dismissed, with the court also noting improper admission of evidence that would have warranted a new trial.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationEmployment TerminationBudgetary ConcernsDepartmental ReorganizationPretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPunitive DamagesMental Anguish
References
14
Case No. ADJ6820997
Regular
Feb 08, 2012

RODOLFO VILLALOVOS vs. ACE BEVERAGE COMPANY, TOPA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the admissibility of medical reports from a physician outside the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) and the subsequent award of temporary and permanent disability benefits. The Appeals Board rescinded the original decision due to unresolved issues regarding the proper establishment and notice of the MPN. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the validity of the MPN and the admissibility of the medical evidence. The WCJ must also clarify whether certain QME reports were admitted into evidence, as reliance on unadmitted evidence is improper.

MPNValdezPrimary Treating PhysicianReconsiderationMedical Provider NetworkInadmissible ReportsStipulationTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityMedical Treatment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

Mitchell v. SUNY Upstate Medical University

Plaintiff Robbie Mitchell sued SUNY Upstate Medical Center for alleged Title VII violations, including race discrimination and retaliation, after experiencing a series of adverse employment actions. These actions included reassignment, disciplinary notices (NODs), a mandatory medical examination, a formal counseling memorandum, a verbal dispute, and eventual termination. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for most claims and that their actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The court granted summary judgment in favor of SUNY Upstate Medical Center, concluding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of discrimination or that retaliation was the but-for cause of the challenged employment actions, and consequently, the case was closed.

Title VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkWorkplace ConductDisciplinary ActionPaid Administrative Leave
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2012

Douyon v. NY Medical Health Care, P.C.

Plaintiff Gabrielle Douyon sued Seymour Schneider, N.Y. Medical Health Care, P.C., Faraidoon Daniel Golyan, M.D., and Kourosh Golyan, alleging unfair debt collection practices under the FDCPA and NY GBL § 349, along with intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The lawsuit stemmed from attempts to collect an alleged medical debt following Douyon's emergency heart surgery performed by Dr. Golyan. Both parties sought summary judgment. The court granted Plaintiff partial summary judgment on FDCPA violations related to statutory disclosures and a threatening voicemail. However, many other FDCPA and NY GBL claims were denied due to factual disputes, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed for lack of medical evidence, with negligence claims partially allowed to proceed on the basis of fear for physical safety.

Fair Debt Collections Practices ActNew York General Business Law § 349Debt CollectionSummary JudgmentEmotional DistressNegligenceAgency RelationshipVicarious LiabilityFreelance Debt CollectorUnfair and Deceptive Practices
References
105
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jesa Medical Supply, Inc. v. GEICO Insurance

Plaintiff commenced this action against GEICO to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services totaling $796.46. GEICO denied the claims, citing lack of medical necessity and charges exceeding the workers' compensation fee schedule. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for $16.46, finding GEICO failed to provide sufficient evidence for its fee schedule defense on that specific amount. Conversely, the court denied plaintiff's motion for the $780 claim and dismissed that cause of action, accepting GEICO's timely mailed denial and an admissible peer review report by Dr. Andrew R. Miller establishing lack of medical necessity. The court also ruled that defects in the defendant's attorney affirmation did not warrant summary judgment for the plaintiff.

no-fault benefitsmedical necessityfee schedulesummary judgmentpeer reviewelectronic signatureinsurance claimsNew York Civil Courtmedical provider reimbursementtimely denial
References
15
Case No. ADJ11255525
Regular
Dec 02, 2019

GWENDOLYN JOHNIGAN vs. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER

This case involves an applicant denied workers' compensation benefits for industrial injury to her right leg and knee, with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying her petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury, relying on a panel qualified medical evaluator's opinion that the work duties were insufficient to cause an injury. The applicant argued the medical evidence was not substantial and sought further development of the record. However, the WCAB found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof with substantial medical evidence. A dissenting opinion argued the medical evidence was insubstantial and required further development.

Petition for ReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorOrthopedistSubstantial Medical EvidenceFurther DevelopmentSupplemental ReportingDeposition TestimonyIndustrial InjuryRight LegRight Knee
References
4
Case No. ADJ1958969 (WCK 0041753) ADJ3020638 (WCK 0041752) ADJ3068271 (OAK 0324422)
Regular
May 03, 2010

LORA MAYBERRY vs. ADDUS HEATHCARE, AIG INSURANCE COMPANY, ALTA BATES MEDICAL CENTER, SUTTER HEALTH WORKERS' COMPENSATION

This case involves an applicant with multiple industrial injuries, including three against Addus Healthcare in 1997 and one against Alta Bates Medical Center in 2005. The administrative law judge found the 1997 low back injury contributed 40% to the medical treatment need for the 2005 injury, with the 2005 injury causing the remainder. Addus sought reconsideration, arguing a medical report was improperly admitted into evidence. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings to determine the admissibility of the report under Labor Code § 5703(a)(2).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAddus HealthcareAlta Bates Medical Centerlicensed vocational nurseindustrial injuryneck injuryshoulder injuryarm injurylow back injuryleft knee injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15,205 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