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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.

Plaintiffs Ellen M. Sullivan and Mark Gross filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., alleging a vertical resale price maintenance scheme that violated antitrust laws and New York’s Consumer Protection Act. They claimed to have suffered economic injury due to inflated shoe prices. Defendant New Balance moved to dismiss the complaint. District Judge Sweet granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate direct injury from purchasing from conspiring retailers. The court also dismissed the pendent state law claims without prejudice, granting plaintiffs leave to refile the complaint within 30 days, provided they limit the class to those who purchased from conspiring retailers.

AntitrustClass Action LawsuitResale Price MaintenanceSherman Act Section 1Clayton Act Section 4Consumer StandingMotion to DismissEconomic InjuryPrice Fixing SchemeIndirect Purchaser Standing
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re J.P. Morgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation

Plaintiffs alleged that the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan implemented by JPMorgan Chase violated ERISA by being age discriminatory and by failing to provide adequate notice of reduced benefit accruals after converting to a cash balance plan. Defendants moved to dismiss all remaining counts. The court denied the motion to dismiss for the age discrimination claim (Count I) and the notice claims (Counts IV-VI), interpreting ERISA's "rate of benefit accrual" to refer to the employee's retirement benefit, which is detrimentally affected for older workers in cash balance plans. The court found that the plan conversion could lead to a significant reduction in benefit accrual, requiring notice. Counts II and III, related to back-loading and forfeiture claims, were dismissed as they had been withdrawn by the plaintiffs.

ERISAAge DiscriminationCash Balance PlansDefined Benefit PlansDefined Contribution PlansBenefit AccrualStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNotice RequirementsSummary Plan Description
References
23
Case No. ADJ519728
Regular
Aug 08, 2011

LOWELL BAPTISTE vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding industrial injury and temporary total disability dating back to 2000. The Board found that the medical opinion relied upon by the workers' compensation judge was not substantial evidence due to staleness, lack of complete records, and insufficient specialization. To ensure a fair resolution, the Board ordered new evaluations by independent orthopedic and psychiatric physicians, who will report on all outstanding medical issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompelling Medical EvaluationsTemporary Total DisabilityIndustrial InjuryOrthopedicsPsychiatrySubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionWCJ
References
2
Case No. ADJ8751227
Regular
Nov 16, 2015

GLORIA ACOSTA vs. BALANCE STAFFING SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Balance Staffing Services. The petitioner voluntarily withdrew their petition. The WCAB noted that even if not withdrawn, the petition would have been dismissed as untimely and lacking in substance. Furthermore, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits based on the Workers' Compensation Judge's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelySkeletalWCJ's ReportBalance Staffing ServicesCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationPatriot Risk ServicesULLICO Casualty Company
References
0
Case No. ADJ10356570
Regular
Oct 20, 2017

SYRUS YARBROUGH vs. SOUTHERN GLAZER'S WINE AND SPIRITS, TRUMBALL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted applicant Syrus Yarbrough's Petition for Removal, rescinding a previous order compelling him to attend an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) appointment. The WCAB found that Labor Code section 4067, relied upon by the judge, did not apply as applicant had not yet attended a formal AME evaluation. Furthermore, the WCAB clarified that Labor Code section 4062.2(f) only applies after an AME evaluation has occurred and does not preclude withdrawal from an AME agreement before such an evaluation. The WCAB noted that the applicant could still be ordered to see his regular physician or a Qualified Medical Evaluator.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorPetition to CompelMedical ExaminationSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmLabor Code Section 4067Labor Code Section 4062.2(f)Withdraw from AMEWCAB
References
1
Case No. ADJ7217859, ADJ7544106
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

YOLANDA MARTINEZ vs. MASS PRECISION, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, SCI @ BALANCE STAFFING SERVICE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves applicant Yolanda Martinez claiming industrial injuries (lumbar spine, right shoulder, psyche) from her employment at Mass Precision. Defendant Zurich North America, insurer for SCI @ Balance Staffing Service, contested liability for the psyche injury, arguing applicant's employment by SCI was less than the six-month statutory minimum. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of joint and several liability, holding that prior employment at the same worksite with dual employers counts towards the six-month requirement for psyche injury claims. This decision was based on the principle that the six-month rule aims to prevent claims from routine stress in new employment, a purpose not served when an employee has a longer-term relationship with the worksite.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma InjuryApportionmentPsychiatric InjuryLabor Code Section 3208.3(d)Six Month Employment RequirementDual EmploymentGeneral EmployerSpecial Employer
References
3
Case No. ADJ7688956
Regular
Jan 31, 2012

SHARON FRINK vs. SHASTA-TEHAMA-TRINITY JOINT COMMUNITY COLLEGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded prior orders, and returned the case for further proceedings. The issue was whether the applicant must attend a re-evaluation with the same Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) after he moved his office a short distance. The Board found that Labor Code section 4062.3(j) requires parties to utilize the same QME for subsequent disputes if possible. They clarified that Administrative Director Rule 34(b) regarding the QME's office location applies only to initial evaluations, not re-evaluations. Therefore, the applicant's refusal to travel a short distance for re-evaluation was not grounds for a new panel QME.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Re-evaluationLabor Code Section 4062.3(j)Administrative Director Rule 34(b)Administrative Director Rule 36(d)Medical Office LocationUnavailable QMECompel Attendance
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,121 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