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. ADJ8266885
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

DAYSI PATRICIA MOLINA ROMERO vs. CALIFORNIA PIZZA KITCHEN, TRAVELERS DIAMOND BAR

This case involves a lien claim by Mario Arroyo, D.C., for chiropractic and physical therapy services provided to an injured worker. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the original findings. The WCAB held that "visits" must be distinguished by the type of treatment rendered, allowing for separate reimbursement caps for chiropractic and physical therapy visits. Further development of the record is required to determine the nature of services provided and whether Arroyo is entitled to reimbursement for physical therapy beyond the 24 chiropractic visits already paid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLien ClaimantChiropractic VisitsPhysical TherapyLabor Code Section 4604.5(c)(1)Bill ReviewerCumulative TraumaIndustrial Injury
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08951 [178 AD3d 525]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Matter of Global Liberty Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of a petition by Global Liberty Insurance Company of New York, which sought to vacate an arbitration award denying their claim. Global Liberty had argued that workers' compensation benefits were available to the assignor, Ramon Martinez, and thus their denial of the no-fault insurance claim to North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC (Martinez's assignee) was proper. The court found that Global Liberty failed to prove Martinez was injured in the course of his employment. The order was modified to remand the matter for a determination of attorneys' fees owed to North Shore Family Chiropractic, PC, including those for the appeal.

Insurance DenialNo-Fault BenefitsArbitration AwardAttorneys' FeesWorkers' Compensation CoverageEmployment StatusAppellate ReviewRemandBurden of ProofAssignor
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tucciarone v. Progressive Insurance

Plaintiffs, chiropractors, initiated a breach of contract action against defendants, a group of insurance companies. They sought additional compensation for specific chiropractic treatments (diathermy, ultrasound, traction) administered during office and home visits, arguing these were not explicitly covered by no-fault insurance fee schedules. Plaintiffs contended they should receive prevailing fees for these nonscheduled discrete treatments, despite being paid the scheduled fees for visits. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing that the chiropractic fee schedule explicitly includes "any and all chiropractic treatment and modalities" within the flat fees for home and office visits, aligning with the legislative intent of Insurance Law § 5108.

No-Fault InsuranceAutomobile Liability InsuranceChiropractic ServicesMedical Fee ScheduleBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationRegulatory InterpretationProfessional Fees
References
1
Case No. SFO 0489218
Regular
Oct 11, 2007

JOSE FACUNDO-GUERRERO vs. NURSERYMEN'S EXCHANGE, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Jose Facundo-Guerrero's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on February 24, 2005. The primary issue is whether the statutory limit of 24 chiropractic treatments applies, as the applicant had already received more than this number before his claim was accepted. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision that the 24-visit limit under Labor Code section 4604.5(d)(1) applies to this injury date, denying further chiropractic treatment visits beyond the cap but allowing for visits necessary for managing his care.

Labor Code Section 4604.5(d)(1)Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationMedical Provider Network (MPN)Chiropractic treatment limitationPermanent and Stationary reportCalifornia Constitutional MandateEqual Protection ClauseWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Findings and Award
References
0
Case No. ADJ1617135 (VNO 0419995)
Regular
Sep 26, 2016

JOHN WILLIAMS, Johnny Williams vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SCIF

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for Johnny Williams, who sustained an industrial injury in 2000. The defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), sought reconsideration of a decision that limited their liability for chiropractic visits. SCIF argued that a 24-visit cap should apply, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied their petition. The Board found that the 24-visit cap applies only to injuries occurring on or after January 1, 2004, and Williams' injury predates this. Furthermore, the Board found that the chiropractic treatment provided was reasonable and necessary, supported by evidence and medical guidelines.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerChiropractic visitsMedical treatment utilization scheduleDate of injuryPermanent disabilityLien claimsReasonable and necessary treatmentACOEM Practice Guidelines
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braswell v. Braswell

The case concerns an appeal by a father from a Family Court order that modified his visitation schedule with his son. The mother had initiated the modification proceeding, citing the child's entry into kindergarten and the disruptive nature of the existing schedule, as well as the child's diagnosis of acute stress disorder linked to visits with his father. The Family Court denied the father's adjournment request and, in his absence, reduced his visitation to three visits annually. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in either the denial of the adjournment or the modification of the visitation, as a sufficient change in circumstances and the child's best interests were demonstrated.

Child visitationVisitation modificationFamily Court ActAppellate reviewAdjournment denialChild custodyBest interests of childAcute stress disorderParenting timeChild welfare
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2009

Ciccone v. Ciccone

In a visitation proceeding, the father appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which granted the mother’s petition for supervised visitation with their daughter. The Family Court's decision was affirmed on appeal. The court found that despite the mother's history of mental health problems and a past admission of physically abusing an adult son, her condition had significantly improved through voluntary mental health treatment and she showed remorse. The decision to award monthly supervised visits was supported by a court-appointed forensic psychologist, a social worker who supervised visits, and the attorney for the child. The Family Court also considered a finding of a family offense against the mother but determined it did not establish that supervised visitation would be detrimental to the child's welfare, especially since experts reported the mother acted appropriately with the child during visits.

Visitation rightsFamily lawChild custodyParental rightsSupervised visitationMental healthParental fitnessBest interest of the childAppellate reviewEvidentiary basis
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lane v. Lane

This case involves a mother's appeal against a Family Court order concerning visitation rights with her son. The Family Court had denied the mother unsupervised visitation and imposed conditions for future modification, stemming from a prior incident where the mother absconded with the son during an unsupervised visit. The appellate court affirmed the denial of unsupervised visitation, finding ample basis in the mother's past conduct and evasive testimony. However, the court deemed it improper to condition the mother's ability to seek modification on engaging in psychotherapy and a mental status evaluation. Although there was an error in admitting uncorroborated statements from the son's half-sister, this was found to be harmless given the substantial evidence supporting the supervised visitation order. The decision ultimately upholds the core finding of supervised visitation while correcting the procedural imposition of conditions.

child custodysupervised visitationparental rightsappellate reviewfamily courtmental health evaluationevidentiary errorharmless errorneglect proceedingconditions for modification
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1998

Millett v. Millett

The case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that modified a prior custody and visitation arrangement for two sons. Initially, the parents had joint custody, but the petitioner sought to limit the respondent's visitation due to alleged mental abuse of the children. The Family Court awarded sole custody to the petitioner and mandated that the respondent's visitation be arranged by the children's therapist. On appeal, the court affirmed the termination of joint custody and the requirement for supervised visitation. However, it found that delegating the authority to determine the specifics of supervised visitation to a therapist was an improper delegation of judicial power. Consequently, the case was remitted to the Family Court of Warren County for further proceedings to establish the nature and frequency of the supervised contacts between the respondent and the children.

Custody disputeVisitation rightsChild mental healthParental fitnessFamily CourtModification of orderAppellate reviewRemandSupervised visitationDelegation of judicial authority
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1991

Barry v. Chefales

The paternal grandmother appealed an order from the Family Court, Queens County, dated February 19, 1991. This order had vacated a previous visitation order and denied her petition for visitation with her granddaughter. The Family Court's decision was supported by findings from a social worker and a court-appointed psychologist, both recommending against visitation, along with testimony from the respondent and her second husband. Sufficient evidence indicated that continued visitation would detrimentally impact the child’s emotional and mental well-being. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court’s decision, finding adequate support in the record for the exercise of discretion.

Child visitationGrandparent visitation rightsFamily Court ActDomestic Relations LawBest interest of the childAppellate reviewDiscretionary rulingChild welfareSocial worker reportPsychological evaluation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 412 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