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. ADJ114638 (VNO 0364765)
Regular
Apr 13, 2009

Adriana Modlin vs. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior decision regarding Adriana Modlin's claim against Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Defendant Cedars-Sinai sought reconsideration, arguing the judge incorrectly applied the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, failed to account for indemnity overpayments and commutations, and miscalculated indemnity rates. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for further proceedings to address these issues, including clarifying indemnity payment records and potentially re-evaluating the correct rating schedule.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleIndemnityCommutationCreditThird Party RecoveryAttorney's Fees
References
0
Case No. ADJ18201897; ADJ18355564
Regular
Jun 03, 2025

GUADALUPE VAZQUEZ vs. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, BETA HEALTHCARE GROUP ROSEVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center's petitions for reconsideration and disqualification. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that applicant Guadalupe Vazquez sustained a specific industrial injury on March 14, 2023, to her lumbar spine, cervical spine, left shoulder, and bilateral knees. The defendant's petition for reconsideration, challenging the date of injury and alleging due process violations, was deemed timely but denied on merits, concurring with the WCJ's report. The petition for disqualification of the WCJ, alleging bias, was denied for lack of detailed factual support and was considered a bad faith attempt to delay proceedings. The Board also ordered further development of the medical record concerning the applicant's alleged head and brain injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5909TimelinessJurisdictionalCode of Civil Procedure Section 641Judicial BiasIndustrial Injury
References
26
Case No. ADJ3623428 (MON 0334798) ADJ1196230 (MON 0334799)
Regular
Feb 08, 2010

FREDERICK DOMINGUE vs. CEDAR SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

Defendant Cedar Sinai Medical Center sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release (C&R) for $99,000, settling applicant Frederick Domingue's claims for various injuries, including psyche, respiratory, and cancer. Defendant argued CMS approval was a condition precedent, applicant failed to disclose terminal brain cancer, and the WCJ abused discretion due to applicant's death post-execution but pre-approval. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding no evidence CMS approval was required given the C&R's terms and CMS guidelines, and that the WCAB has discretion to approve a C&R even after an applicant's death. Furthermore, the Board found no sufficient evidence of nondisclosure of a separate terminal brain cancer condition.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseMedicare Set AsideCMS approvalcondition precedentindustrial injurypsycherespiratory systemspine
References
13
Case No. ADJ7626709
Regular
Mar 07, 2014

JUDY WANG vs. CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns Judy Wang's workers' compensation claim against Cedars Sinai Medical Center. The Appeals Board dismissed Wang's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. Specifically, the petition was filed more than 20 days after the WCJ's decision, and personal service of the decision negated any mailing extension. The Board noted that even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely PetitionLabor Code section 5903Jurisdictional Time LimitAppeals BoardWCJPersonal ServiceMailing ExtensionWCAB Rule 10507Dismissal
References
7
Case No. ADJ9160815
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

ALMA CEDILLO vs. CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves an applicant, Alma Cedillo, seeking workers' compensation benefits from Cedars Sinai Medical Center and Tristar Risk Management. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order denying a Petition for Removal filed in the case. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in reaching its decision to deny removal. Therefore, the applicant's request to remove the case from the current process was rejected.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCedars Sinai Medical CenterTristar Risk ManagementAdministrative Law JudgeADJ9160815Van Nuys District OfficeAlma Cedillodenying removalworkers' compensation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rechenberger v. Nassau County Medical Center

Edward Rechenberger suffered hip fractures and underwent two operations at Nassau County Medical Center in May 1982. Following a re-injury and later diagnosis, he learned the surgical hardware was improperly implanted, leading to further operations. Mr. Rechenberger sought leave to serve a late notice of claim against the medical center. The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the hospital had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the statutory 90-day period through its own medical records. The court concluded that the delay in serving the notice of claim was not substantially prejudicial to the hospital, and thus, granted the petitioners leave to serve the late notice of claim.

Medical MalpracticeLate Notice of ClaimNassau CountyHip FractureSurgical ErrorContinuous Treatment DoctrineActual NoticePrejudiceAppellate ReviewMunicipal Corporation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraser v. Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc.

In this medical malpractice action, the defendant The Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc. appealed an order that granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike its workers’ compensation coverage defense. Concurrently, the plaintiff cross-appealed the dismissal of the complaint against defendant S. Fong. The appellate court affirmed the decision to strike the workers’ compensation defense for The Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc., citing its participation and lack of appeal in the prior Workers’ Compensation Board hearing. However, the dismissal of the complaint against S. Fong was reversed, as S. Fong was not present at the Board hearing, thus preclusion did not apply, and a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the injury was employment-related. The court also rejected S. Fong's argument regarding the absence of a doctor-patient relationship.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseSpecial EmployeeCoemployeePreclusive EffectTriable Issue of FactDoctor-Patient RelationshipAppellate ReviewHospital Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2012

Williams v. Woodhull Medical & Mental Health Center

Valerie E. Williams filed an action against Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center and other defendants, alleging discrimination and retaliation under federal and state laws, including Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation, advising to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiff Williams filed objections to the R&R, particularly contesting the recommendation on her Title VII retaliation claim. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, upon de novo review of the contested portions and clear error review of the uncontested, adopted the R&R in its entirety. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Williams's claims, specifically noting a lack of causal connection for retaliation and insufficient evidence for a hostile work environment or due process violations.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII RetaliationSummary JudgmentProcedural Due ProcessHostile Work EnvironmentMedical Negligence AllegationsPublic Health LawHospital EmploymentMagistrate Judge ReviewFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56
References
80
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1997

Mushatt v. Cayuga Medical Center

Plaintiff appealed a judgment favoring defendants Cayuga Medical Center and the estate of her obstetrician, Frank Flacco, in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff alleged that negligent care during her son Quandale's birth on August 15, 1990, led to his severe spastic cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and seizure disorder, attributing it to oxygen deprivation caused by a delayed Cesarean section. Defendants argued the oxygen deprivation occurred prior to delivery due to an acute event and chronic condition, and their care met standards. The jury sided with defendants. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the verdict's weight, the application of CPLR 4519 (Dead Man's Statute), the admission of testimony regarding her drug and alcohol use, and a missing witness charge. The Supreme Court Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, finding no errors warranting reversal.

Medical MalpracticeBirth InjuryCerebral PalsyOxygen DeprivationCesarean SectionExpert WitnessDead Man's StatuteCPLR 4519Appellate ReviewNegligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lutheran Medical Center v. Hereford Insurance

Maher Kiswani, a livery car driver, was injured in an automobile accident and received medical treatment from Lutheran Medical Center. Lutheran, as Kiswani's assignee, sought payment from Hereford Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, which refused to pay. After an initial arbitration where the Workers' Compensation Board determined Kiswani was not injured in the course of employment (without Hereford's notice), a second arbitration awarded Lutheran no-fault benefits. The Supreme Court, Kings County, vacated this arbitration award, ruling that Hereford should have been notified of the Workers' Compensation Board hearing. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that a party not afforded an opportunity to participate in a Board hearing is not bound by its determination.

Arbitration AwardNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BoardDue ProcessNotice RequirementsVacated Arbitration AwardAppellate ReviewLivery Car DriverAutomobile AccidentMedical Benefits
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 9,418 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