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

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. ADJ7521436
Regular
Jun 24, 2013

ABEL RAMIREZ vs. CROWN WIRE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final discovery order. The Board then removed the case to itself and amended the original order. The amended order allows the parties 15 days to agree on an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) for the issue of diabetes aggravation, and if they cannot agree, they must request a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The Board found the WCJ's original appointment of a "regular physician" was premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 5701Labor Code Section 4062.2Industrial InjuryAggravation of DiabetesInternal Medicine
References
8
Case No. ADJ10856280
Regular
Aug 16, 2019

JOHN CAMPBELL, (deceased) vs. CITY OF RED BLUFF FIRE DEPARTMENT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for removal, rescinding a prior order and finding all four Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels invalid due to errors in claim numbers and procedural missteps. The Board determined that due to multiple panel failures and the employee's passing, the parties must agree to an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) within 15 days. If an AME cannot be agreed upon, the administrative law judge will appoint a physician.

Qualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMELabor Code Section 5701Administrative Director Rule 31.5Administrative Director Rule 30(c)Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013
References
2
Case No. ADJ11408219 ADJ10230973 ADJ8720775 ADJ11048512
Regular
Jul 08, 2019

DAVE PIERSON vs. CITY OF FAIRFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Appeals Board granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order allowing further discovery from Dr. McHenry. The Board held that an employee is not required to return to a previous agreed medical evaluator for subsequent injury claims, citing their en banc decision in *Navarro*. Labor Code section 4062.2 exclusively governs medical-legal evaluations, and Dr. McHenry lacked status in the current claims as he was neither an agreed nor panel qualified medical evaluator. The matter was returned to the trial level for discovery consistent with statutory requirements.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 4062.2Labor Code section 3212Navarro v. City of MontebelloRescind OrderReturn to Trial LevelIndustrial InjuryFire Captain
References
1
Case No. ADJ10091553
Regular
May 06, 2019

DWIGHT STILLWELL vs. WYLATTI RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant challenged the administrative law judge's (WCJ) permanent disability rating of $76\%$. The applicant argued that the WCJ improperly combined medical impairments when an agreed medical evaluator suggested adding them for a higher rating of $88\%$. The WCJ acknowledged misinterpreting the medical evidence in their report, admitting that the agreed medical evaluator did indicate adding impairments was more appropriate. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow the WCJ to re-evaluate the permanent disability rating based on the correct understanding of the medical evidence.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesPermanent Disability RatingPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardCVCSchedule for Rating Permanent DisabilitiesOrthopedistIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ3799579 (VNO 0474814) ADJ1009432 (VNO 0518597)
Regular
Jun 16, 2010

SHAWN PETTWAY vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns whether Labor Code section 4062 or 4062.2 governs the medical evaluation process for applicant Shawn Pettway's injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant school district's petition for removal. The WCAB found that since Pettway's injuries occurred prior to January 1, 2005, the older section 4062 applies, entitling the defendant to select its own Qualified Medical Evaluator if an Agreed Medical Evaluator cannot be reached. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the prior order compelling the parties to agree on an AME or panel.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4062Labor Code Section 4062.2Industrial InjuriesCampus SupervisorBack InjuryInternal InjuryKidney Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ6870507
Regular
Jun 24, 2010

ULISES FUENTES vs. DICKIE DOBINS CLEANERS, ILLINOIS WEST INSURANCE AGENCY, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE AGENCY

This case involves a dispute over the issuance of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in a workers' compensation claim. The applicant sought reconsideration of an order for a QME panel, alleging a deviation from an agreed medical evaluator process and lack of notice. The defendant presented a conflicting account of events, claiming the applicant's attorney conditioned the agreed medical evaluation on the defendant providing temporary disability benefits. The Appeals Board found the divergent factual accounts warranted removal and rescinded the QME panel order. The case is returned to the trial level for factual resolution and to determine if sanctions are appropriate.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRemovalQME PanelLabor Code § 4062.2Agreed Medical EvaluatorPetition to CompelEx parteNoticeSanctionsLabor Code § 5813
References
1
Case No. ADJ9344182, ADJ9344101
Regular
Jul 29, 2019

ROSA COREAS vs. LANGER JUICE COMPANY, INC., SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, ENSTAR (US), INC.

This case involved applicant Rosa Coreas's claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained while employed by Langer Juice Company. The core dispute concerned whether the defendant acted in bad faith by refusing to agree to an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) or a joint request for additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels for psychiatric and neurological evaluations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the initial decision, finding that the defendant's refusal did not constitute bad faith or frivolous tactics under Labor Code Section 5813. The Board noted that both parties could have handled the situation better and that the case was distinguishable from prior precedent requiring such agreements. Ultimately, the Board determined there was no good cause to overturn the administrative law judge's decision denying sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and OrderAgreed Medical ExaminersQualified Medical EvaluatorsPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsBad Faith ActionsLabor Code Section 5813Administrative Director Rule 31.7Medical-Legal Report
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Carew

The court considered two child abuse petitions filed by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services against a father, based on unsworn statements from his three and five-year-old children. The respondent father moved for psychiatric evaluations of the children and their mother to defend against the allegations, citing the need for expert assessment of the children's credibility. The court balanced the children's welfare against the father's right to a fair trial, noting the unique challenges of corroborating out-of-court statements in Article 10 proceedings. The court granted the father's request to the extent of ordering a validation interview for both children, stipulating a court-designated examiner if parties could not agree. The request for the mother's examination was denied due to insufficient justification.

Child AbuseFamily Court ActPsychiatric EvaluationChild CredibilityHearsay TestimonyCorroboration RequirementDue ProcessParental RightsSuffolk CountyUnsworn Statements
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,226 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