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. ADJ7422993
Regular
Apr 06, 2015

SHIRLEY LESCALLETT vs. WAL-MART, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, YORK RISK SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant sought to select a pain management specialist as her primary treating physician. The employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN) did not have any pain management specialists within the 15-mile/30-minute access standard for primary physicians, though it did have specialists within a 30-mile/60-minute radius. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that if an applicant chooses a specialist for their primary care, the MPN must provide at least three physicians of that specialty within a 15-mile/30-minute radius. Since the defendant's MPN failed to meet this standard for pain management specialists, the applicant was permitted to choose one outside the MPN. A dissenting opinion argued that the 30-mile/60-minute standard for specialists should apply, allowing the applicant to select a physician within that broader radius from the MPN.

MPNMedical Provider NetworkPrimary Treating PhysicianSpecialistAccess StandardsAdministrative Director's RulePain Management PhysicianGeographic RadiusLabor CodeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2013

Matter of Madigan v. ARR ELS

In 1994, the claimant sustained a low back injury during employment as a machinist, leading to workers' compensation benefits. Liability for the case was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2003. Due to poor surgical outcomes, the claimant has been on pain medication, including oxycontin, since at least 2007, with doses escalating. A consultant for the Special Fund questioned the necessity of the increased medication, prompting a hearing. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ruled that the pain medications should continue, with the Special Fund covering the costs, until new Board guidelines or physician recommendations advised otherwise. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, citing that their Medical Treatment Guidelines for chronic pain were still in draft form at the time. The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the guidelines were not yet in effect at the time of the Board's ruling and that the Board's interim guidance was rational.

Workers' CompensationPain ManagementOpioid PrescriptionsMedical Treatment GuidelinesSpecial FundReopened CasesLumbar InjuryOxycontinAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ1088522 (RIV 0015524)
Regular
Jan 03, 2013

SAMANTHA VAN DUINHOVEN vs. SPA HOTEL & CASINO, CALIFORNIA CASUALTY, Administered by GAB ROBINS NORTH AMERICA

This case involved an applicant who claimed industrial injury to her neck, back, left shoulder, psyche, and associated chronic pain syndrome, resulting in a finding of permanent total disability. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the medical evidence did not support injury to the low back or a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome. The Appeals Board reversed the findings on the low back and chronic pain syndrome, finding no substantial evidence to support them. Consequently, the applicant's permanent disability award was amended to 70%, based on ratings for her neck, left shoulder, and psyche.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilityChronic Pain SyndromeAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical Record ReviewIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability Indemnity
References
0
Case No. ADJ605947 (MON 0274664)
Regular
Feb 02, 2009

LESLIE CELLUCCI vs. FLORENCE MACHINE PRODUCTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for injuries to the applicant's hands, upper extremities, and neck, resulting in chronic pain syndrome and a sleep disorder. The defendant disputed the extent of permanent disability and the diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome and sleep disorder. The Appeals Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury and the 85% permanent disability rating, including the diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome and sleep disorder. The Board also granted reconsideration to amend the award to include a life pension for the applicant, as required by law for an 85% permanent disability finding.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLeslie CellucciFlorence Machine ProductsState Compensation Insurance FundADJ605947Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityChronic Pain SyndromeSleep Disorder
References
0
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00599 [224 AD3d 428]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2024

Matter of New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

This case involves two appeals by New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. against Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty Company. New Millennium sought to vacate master arbitration awards that denied its claims for no-fault benefits for medical services. The Supreme Court denied these applications. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions, stating that an arbitrator's award will not be set aside unless it is irrational. The court also addressed the argument regarding a 20% wage offset in no-fault benefits, finding it unavailing under Insurance Law § 5102 (b). Ultimately, New Millennium was not entitled to attorneys' fees as it was not the prevailing party.

No-fault benefitsarbitration awardvacaturinsurance lawwage offsetappellate reviewmedical servicesno-fault policy exhaustionattorneys' feesCPLR Article 75
References
8
Case No. 530353
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2021

Matter of Quigley v. Village of E. Aurora

Daniel Quigley, a police officer with established workers' compensation claims for work-related injuries since 1998 and 2004, developed chronic regional pain syndrome. After years of opiate treatment, his pain management specialist, Cheryl Hart, certified him for medical marihuana in May 2018. The employer and carrier denied the variance request, citing federal preemption by the Controlled Substances Act and statutory exemption under Public Health Law. The Workers' Compensation Board approved the variance, which was upheld by the Appellate Division, Third Department. The court found no conflict preemption and affirmed that workers' compensation carriers are obligated to reimburse for medical marihuana expenses.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsChronic Pain TreatmentMedical MarihuanaVariance ApprovalFederal Preemption DoctrineControlled Substances ActNew York Compassionate Care ActEmployer LiabilityCarrier ReimbursementOpioid Reduction
References
21
Case No. ADJ6521264
Regular
Oct 11, 2013

ANGELA STUART-KNIGHTS vs. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an award finding the applicant sustained 66% permanent disability due to a cumulative trauma injury. The applicant argued that the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) report rebutted the permanent disability rating, particularly regarding her chronic pain syndrome. However, the WCAB affirmed the original award, deferring to the judge's credibility determination regarding the applicant's demeanor and testimony, which contradicted the AME's assessment of severe pain. Furthermore, the AME himself deferred to another physician on the issue of chronic pain, undermining his report's evidentiary value on that point.

WCABReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardAdministrative Law JudgeWCJCumulative TraumaPermanent DisabilityAMA GuidesAlmaraz/Guzman
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Law v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Sherdic Law challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Social Security Income disability benefits, alleging disability due to various impairments including chronic leg pain, lower back pain, hepatitis C, and hyperthyroidism. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Law's claim, finding he could perform sedentary work. U.S. District Judge Mukasey vacated the SSA's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the ALJ failed to adequately develop the administrative record regarding Law’s chronic leg pain, specifically omitting to obtain and review his EMG report despite objective medical evidence and Law’s testimony. This failure resulted in Law not receiving a full and fair hearing.

Social Security IncomeDisability BenefitsChronic Leg PainHerniated DiscHepatitis CHyperthyroidismHypertensionLumbar SpineAdministrative Law JudgeRemand
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2000

Pain Resource Center v. Travelers Insurance

This case addresses a dispute regarding the payment of first-party no-fault benefits to a health provider, Pain Resource Center, as the assignee of John Hiotis, who was injured in an auto accident. The defendant, Travelers Ins. Co., challenged the validity of the assignment and the necessity of the medical services provided. The court affirmed the validity of the assignment under New York's Insurance Law and related regulations. However, based on conflicting expert testimonies, the court limited the compensable medical services to six hours and awarded the plaintiff $566.10, along with statutory interest and attorney's fees.

No-Fault InsuranceFirst-Party BenefitsAssignment ValidityMedical ServicesPeer ReviewInsurance LawHealth Provider ClaimAutomobile AccidentDamagesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Universal Acupuncture Pain Services, P.C. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.

The New York court addresses a motion for reargument by Universal Acupuncture Pain Services, P.C. against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company concerning no-fault insurance claims. The central legal question is whether an expert witness's peer review report, created after a timely denial of a no-fault claim, can be admitted at trial, specifically under the Cirucci precedent regarding the specificity of denial grounds. The court grants the motion for reargument but upholds its initial ruling, which granted partial summary judgment on one of five claims. It clarifies that the expert's testimony must be strictly limited to the "concurrent or excessive care" ground initially stated by the insurer, excluding any new grounds like "medical necessity" not specified in the original denial. The court emphasizes that the issue of whether different treatment modalities constitute concurrent care for the same condition requires a trial for factual determination.

No-Fault InsurancePeer ReviewExpert Witness TestimonySummary Judgment MotionInsurance Law InterpretationSpecificity of DenialConcurrent Medical CareAcupuncture TreatmentChiropractic TreatmentPhysical Therapy
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 914 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