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. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. ADJ7199986 ADJ7399845
Regular
Oct 03, 2011

ELMIRA SMITH vs. PACIFIC AUTISM CENTER FOR EDUCATION, TRI- STAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant sought removal to challenge a finding that defendant's requested Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel was properly assigned. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the finding, and determined that *neither* panel was properly assigned. Both panel requests were found to be premature as they were made before the statutory 10-day period for agreeing on an Agreed Medical Evaluator had expired, plus an additional five days for mail service. This decision clarifies the timing requirements for QME panel requests following an unsuccessful attempt to select an AME.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Labor Code section 4062.2(b)WCAB Rule 10507Messele v. Pitco FoodsInc.Premature RequestPanel AssignmentMedical Unit
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. G107 435
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2023

Matter of Marku v. ABM Industries

This case concerns the claim of Denise Perry under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) previously found that the employer, Adventist Home Care, established a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by the claimant for willfully making false statements to obtain benefits. Consequently, the WCLJ disallowed indemnity benefits and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties. A Board Panel decision filed on February 17, 2022, affirmed the WCLJ's findings. The claimant subsequently filed an application for reconsideration on March 18, 2022, which the Board Panel reviewed. After considering the claimant’s arguments, the Board Panel determined that the application did not raise new issues or present new material evidence, nor did it demonstrate an erroneous statement of material fact or law in the prior decision. Therefore, the Board Panel, by a majority vote, affirmed its prior decision.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse RepresentationIndemnity Benefits DisallowanceWCL § 114-a PenaltyApplication for Reconsideration DeniedBoard Panel AffirmationWillful MisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law Judge DecisionEmployer Established Violation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund, now Texas Mutual, challenged an appeals panel decision by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission which awarded lifetime income benefits to claimant Leonard D. Watts. Watts, a truck driver for Mono Chem Corporation, sustained a leg injury in 1994, leading to severe medical conditions and ultimately the loss of use of both feet. A hearing officer initially denied lifetime benefits due to insufficient evidence of a causal connection to the original injury, but the appeals panel twice reversed this decision, rendering a new decision in favor of Watts. Texas Mutual sought judicial review, arguing the appeals panel exceeded its statutory authority and improperly engaged in factual-sufficiency review. The district court set aside the appeals panel's decision. This court, however, reversed the district court's decision, affirming the appeals panel’s award of lifetime income benefits to Watts, holding that the appeals panel acted within its statutory authority.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsAppeals Panel ReviewJudicial ReviewFactual SufficiencyStatutory AuthorityCausationRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelTexas Labor Code
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Dir.(bodek)

This case addresses the appealability and reviewability of compensation orders issued under County Law § 722-c. The dispute arose from services provided by Hillel Bodek, a social worker, to indigent defendants in New York County, for which the Supreme Court ordered the City of New York to pay $100 per hour, often exceeding statutory norms due to 'extraordinary circumstances'. The Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan for New York City sought reconsideration and fee reduction, citing budget constraints and lower prescribed rates, but was unsuccessful at the Supreme Court and Appellate Division. This Court, after granting leave to appeal, affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that such compensation orders are administrative in nature and not subject to judicial review on their merits by an appellate panel.

Compensation OrderAppellate ReviewCounty Law § 722-cAssigned Counsel PlanSocial Worker FeesExtraordinary CircumstancesJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewNon-reviewable OrdersIndigent Defense
References
7
Case No. ADJ8390068
Regular
Oct 20, 2015

SUSANA SALAZAR vs. MOTEL 6, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. The Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated here. The WCJ's decision was consistent with the en banc decision in *Matute*, which held that a party has ten days plus five days for mailing to strike a name from a QME panel assignment. This ruling applies to panel assignments communicated by mail.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewIMRMatute v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.Labor Code section 4062.2(c)QME Panel
References
5
Case No. 09-06-569 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2007

Facility Insurance Corp., a Successor in Interest to the Texas Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool v. Anthony Zenon and Neurobehavioral Resources, Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses an appeal involving Facility Insurance Corp., as Successor in Interest to the Texas Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool (Appellant), and Anthony Zenon and Neurobehavioral Resources, Ltd. (Appellees). The parties jointly requested the Court to vacate the judgment rendered by the trial court and remand the cause for the entry of a new judgment, in accordance with their reached agreement. The Court, finding the motion compliant with Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2), granted the request. As a result, the judgment of the trial court was vacated without delving into the merits of the case, and the matter was sent back to the 60th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, for further proceedings in line with the parties' settlement agreement. All costs incurred were assessed against the respective parties.

TexasCourt of AppealsVacatedRemandedSettlement AgreementWorkers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureMemorandum OpinionTrial Court JudgmentJoint Motion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Burns v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits due to injuries from an automobile accident. As an employee of the Workers’ Compensation Board, his claim was processed through a neutral outside arbitration process. An arbitrator established his claim and average weekly wage. Claimant appealed, arguing his average weekly wage should have been calculated differently due to a recent promotion, as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (2). An arbitration panel declined to address this argument because it was not raised before the arbitrator. The appellate court affirmed the panel's decision, citing that the panel could decline review of issues not previously raised, consistent with 12 NYCRR 300.13 [e] [1] [iii].

ArbitrationAverage Weekly WageWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIssue PreservationAdministrative LawProcedural Due ProcessStatutory InterpretationWorkers’ Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mulligan v. Workers' Compensation Board

The claimant, a former workers' compensation law judge, appealed the denial of reduced earning benefits, which stemmed from his claim that stress from his job caused him to voluntarily withdraw from the labor market. He had previously received benefits for a 1995 angina attack. An arbitrator and subsequent arbitration panel concluded that he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, a determination the claimant contested, asserting his retirement was due to work-related stress. The court, led by Judge Carpinello, found substantial evidence supported the panel's decision, noting the claimant never complained of stress to supervisors, sought accommodations, or applied for disability retirement. The court affirmed the arbitration panel's decision, denying the claimant's appeal.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketReduced Earning BenefitsWorkers Compensation BenefitsArbitration Panel DecisionSubstantial EvidenceDisability RetirementJob-Related StressAppellate ReviewLabor Market WithdrawalClaim Denial
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 2,406 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