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. 2022-08-0195
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2022

Evans, Antron v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

Mr. Antron Evans requested a panel of psychiatrists, attorney's fees, and payment of a medical bill following a store robbery where he sustained a head injury. Family Dollar, the employer, contended he was not entitled to a psychiatric panel without a referral from an authorized physician, disputed the medical bill, and denied wrongfully denying the claim for attorney's fees. The Court denied Mr. Evans's requests for a psychiatric panel and payment of the emergency room bill, citing the statutory requirement of a panel physician's referral for psychiatric services and lack of proof for the medical bill. However, the Court granted his request for attorney's fees due to Family Dollar's five-month delay in timely initiating medical benefits. Additionally, Family Dollar was referred to the Compliance Program for potential penalties concerning the late filing of the First Report of Injury and the untimely provision of a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical Benefits DenialAttorney's Fees GrantEmployer PenaltiesExpedited HearingPsychiatric ReferralStatutory InterpretationLate Claim ProcessingFirst Report of Injury DelayPost-Traumatic Stress
References
6
Case No. 2023-06-8324, 2023-06-8394, 44935-2022, 9562-2023
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2024

Salih, Ahmed v. Ean Holdings, LLC

Ahmed Salih, an employee, requested medical benefits for injuries from two separate work accidents where he slipped and fell on his left side. In one claim, he sought authorization for a direct referral to an orthopedic spine specialist from his treating physician. In the other, he sought a panel of physicians for medical treatment. The Court granted his requested relief, finding he is likely to prevail at a final hearing. The employer, EAN Holdings, LLC, was referred to the Compliance Program for failing to offer appropriate panels and accept referrals as required by law.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingReferral AuthorizationPhysician PanelSlip and FallCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCervical RadiculopathyRotator Cuff TearEmployer Compliance
References
4
Case No. 2024-60-5751
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2025

Rooks, Sabrina v. Amazon.com

Sabrina Rooks, an employee, filed for an expedited hearing against Amazon.com and American Zurich Insurance Company after injuring her right foot, ankle, and knee at work. The Court found that Amazon unreasonably delayed authorizing a direct medical referral to Dr. Christopher Jones, prompting a referral to the Compliance Program for a penalty. Despite this, Ms. Rooks's claim for temporary partial disability benefits was denied. The Court determined that Amazon proved Ms. Rooks violated a valid workplace rule by sleeping on the job, which was the true motivation for her termination, making her unlikely to prevail on the merits for these benefits.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical Treatment DelayTemporary Partial DisabilityWorkplace Rule ViolationEmployer PenaltyDirect Medical ReferralCausation of InjuryAttorney's Fees AwardTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v. Commissioner of Labor

The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed an appeal filed by the Community Housing Improvement Program against the Commissioner of Labor. The appeal sought to challenge a decision by the Industrial Board of Appeals regarding a minimum wage order for the building service industry. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to properly file a notice of appeal with the court of original instance, which was the Industrial Board of Appeals, not the Appellate Division. Additionally, the petitioner failed to timely and correctly serve the notice of appeal on the respondent's counsel at the designated address. Consequently, due to the complete failure to comply with CPLR 5515, the appeal was dismissed.

JurisdictionAppeal ProcedureService of ProcessAppellate DivisionIndustrial Board of AppealsMinimum WageLabor LawCPLRNew York CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. 142 SSM 33
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2017

The Matter of the Claim of Lidia Burgos v. Citywide Central Insurance Program

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. The decision concerned the claim of Lidia Burgos against Citywide Central Insurance Program and the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division had concluded that substantial evidence supported the Workers' Compensation Board's determinations regarding the claimant's degree of impairment and loss of wage-earning capacity. The Court of Appeals found no reason to overturn this conclusion.

Workers' CompensationImpairmentWage-earning CapacitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionClaimantInsurance ProgramBoard DeterminationJudicial ReviewAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. 2018-01-0040 ja bis
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2019

Newton, Cameron v. OM Hixson, LLC

Cameron Newton sustained a psychological injury diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder by Dr. John Robertson, who ordered psychotherapy. The employer, OM Hixson, LLC, failed to provide a panel of psychotherapists for over two months, contending Mr. Newton had not established that Dr. Robertson was unwilling to provide the therapy or that the order was limited to psychiatrists or psychologists. The Court found the employer's arguments without merit, noting a pattern of previous delays in providing benefits. The Court ordered OM Hixson, LLC to promptly provide Mr. Newton with a panel of psychotherapists and referred the case to the Bureau’s Compliance Unit for assessment of a penalty due to the employer's repeated failure to timely provide recommended medical treatment.

Psychological InjuryPost-traumatic Stress DisorderPsychotherapyEMDR TherapyMedical BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawExpedited HearingPenalty AssessmentEmployer DelayCompliance Unit Referral
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. 2021-02-0655
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2022

Oteey, Eddie v. Asplundh Tree Expert Company

Eddie Otey, an employee, filed for an expedited hearing seeking payment for authorized medical bills and penalties for late payments from his employer, Asplundh Tree Expert Company. The Court found that Asplundh did not dispute the medical bills from Drs. Snelson, Jett, and Austin, and ordered the employer to pay them. However, Mr. Otey's request for payment of prescription medications was denied due to insufficient documentation. The case was referred to the Compliance Program to consider an administrative penalty against Asplundh for late payment of authorized medical treatment. Additionally, Dr. Snelson was referred to the Compliance Program for contacting and demanding payment directly from Mr. Otey for his work-related injury.

expedited hearingmedical expenseslate payment penaltyworkers' compensation claimsdental injuryauthorization of treatmentbilling disputescompliance referralemployee protectionsemployer responsibilities
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. County of Erie

This appellate case concerns the standing of petitioners, Building and Construction Trades Council of Buffalo and Vicinity and Operating Engineers Local 17 Training Fund, to challenge a public works contract awarded by Erie County to Tom Greenauer Development, Inc. Petitioners argued the contract was invalid due to Greenauer's non-compliance with a local law requiring a certified worker training program. The Supreme Court's decision granting the petition was reversed on appeal, with the appellate court concluding that petitioners lacked standing. The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate an actual injury in fact distinct from the general public, deeming their alleged harm speculative and insufficient for associational or organizational standing. A dissenting opinion argued that petitioners did have standing, emphasizing the local law's intent to promote apprenticeship programs and the direct impact of the county's non-compliance on petitioners' ability to participate.

StandingPublic ContractsLocal LawWorker Training ProgramApprenticeshipErie CountyCPLR Article 78PreemptionERISAInjury in Fact
References
12
Case No. Docket No. 406
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2005

Frew v. Hawkins

This civil action, initiated in 1993, addresses the alleged failure of the State of Texas to implement a Medicaid program, specifically the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program, for indigent children. A Consent Decree was approved in 1996 to ensure compliance, with the court retaining jurisdiction. Defendants subsequently filed a Rule 60(b) motion in November 2004, seeking either complete dissolution of the Consent Decree or its partial dissolution for urban areas, citing compliance with federal law and changed circumstances. Following a June 2005 hearing, the Court evaluated evidence concerning medical checkups, dental services, outreach efforts, and case management. The Court concluded that Defendants failed to demonstrate significant changed factual circumstances, that the proposed relief was suitably tailored, or that reasonable efforts were made to comply with the decree's obligations. Consequently, Defendants' Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief From Judgment was DENIED, affirming the continued prospective application of the Consent Decree.

Medicaid Program EnforcementEPSDT ServicesConsent Decree ModificationRule 60(b) MotionHealth Care AccessIndigent Children's HealthManaged Care PerformanceState Compliance IssuesOutreach EffectivenessDental Care Access
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 1,831 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