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. 2017-2088 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2019

Quality Comprehensive Med. Care, P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

The Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed an appeal concerning assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, Quality Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., appealed a Civil Court order that granted summary judgment to the defendant, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, dismissing the complaint. The defendant had denied claims asserting a lack of medical necessity and excessive fees. The appellate court determined that the defendant did not establish a lack of medical necessity. However, it agreed that fees exceeding $425.88 per claim surpassed the allowed amount under the workers' compensation fee schedule. Therefore, the Civil Court's order was modified to dismiss only the portion of the complaint seeking recovery in excess of $425.88 per claim, and the order was affirmed as modified.

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityWorkers' compensation fee scheduleSummary judgmentAppellate reviewInsurance claimsFee disputeAssigned benefitsCivil CourtKings County
References
4
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. ADJ9826556
Regular
Aug 05, 2016

Spencer Bachus vs. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, Hi-Desert Medical Center

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior decision finding applicant sustained a work-related viral meningitis injury. Defendants argued insufficient medical evidence linked the injury to employment and that the identified virus was not definitively work-acquired. The WCAB determined the existing medical evidence, particularly the Qualified Medical Evaluator's opinions, did not sufficiently establish a special risk of exposure due to the applicant's specific job duties. The case was returned for further development of the record, including a more detailed analysis of the applicant's job tasks and potential exposure risks, and potentially a new medical evaluation by an infectious disease specialist.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardViral meningitisIndustrial injuryDual employmentPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Substantial medical evidenceCausationSpecial riskFurther proceedingsRescinded
References
0
Case No. ADJ10077078
Regular
Oct 06, 2016

Francisco Meza Diaz vs. Silvestri Studio, Inc., Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the previous order. The Board found that the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) should address all contested medical issues, not just compensability and causation, as initially ordered. This aligns with statutory requirements for comprehensive medical evaluations under Labor Code sections 4060, 4062.2, 4062.3, and 4064. Additionally, the Board found no basis for the prior order's findings on earnings, impairment, or further medical treatment, as these were not the stipulated issues for trial.

QMEpanel QMEDr. Hymancompensabilitycausationcumulative traumaLabor Code section 4060Labor Code section 4062comprehensive medical evaluationcontested medical issues
References
0
Case No. ADJ7436407, ADJ1895040 (FRE 0238028)
Regular
Feb 04, 2015

Colleen Newby vs. Fresno Community Medical Center, St. Agnes Medical Center, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Colleen Newby's Petition for Removal, upholding the denial of her petition to quash a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) request. The Board found that the prior employer, Fresno Community Medical Center, was authorized to file an application for adjudication of claim for Newby's subsequent employment with St. Agnes Medical Center. Crucially, the Board determined that a claim form is not a prerequisite for St. Agnes to request a QME panel in this specific scenario, where a second injury is claimed by a prior employer. Newby's due process claim was rejected as she had an opportunity to present her arguments on removal.

Petition for RemovalPetition to QuashQME RequestQualified Medical EvaluatorClaim FormDue ProcessAgreed Medical EvaluatorApplication for AdjudicationTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The plaintiff, Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C., sought $950 in first-party no-fault benefits for biofeedback medical services provided to its assignor for lower back and chronic pain syndrome. The central issue at trial was the medical necessity of these services under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1). The plaintiff established a prima facie case with expert testimony from a board-certified neurologist affirming the medical appropriateness of biofeedback. The defendant insurance company failed to present admissible evidence to disprove medical necessity, as its expert was deemed incompetent to testify on biofeedback for back pain. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, awarding judgment for $950 along with statutory costs, interest, and attorney's fees.

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityBiofeedback treatmentExpert testimonyDirected verdictInsurance lawChronic pain syndromeBack injuryCPT codesBurden of proof
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

A claimant sustained a work-related back injury and sought continued medical treatment, which was initially authorized. Disputes over authorization led the claimant to retain an attorney. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge authorized continued medical treatment but denied counsel fees, stating no "money passing" occurred. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board unconstitutionally applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, misinterpreted the statute regarding fee payment from medical benefits, and abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees must be paid from "compensation," defined as a money allowance, and medical benefits are not considered "compensation" for this purpose, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. 2016-198 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case concerns a provider, Comprehensive Care Physical Therapy, P.C., seeking no-fault benefits from Allstate Insurance Company. The Civil Court initially denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint based on the assignor's failure to appear for independent medical examinations (IMEs) and claims exceeding the fee schedule. On appeal, the Appellate Term modified this order, finding that Allstate failed to provide sufficient proof of timely denial form mailing, thereby precluding its defenses regarding IMEs and the fee schedule. Consequently, Allstate's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, reversing that part of the lower court's decision. However, the Appellate Term affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion, as the plaintiff also failed to establish their claims.

no-fault insurancesummary judgmentindependent medical examinationstimely denialinsurance defenseappellate reviewmedical billingassignee rightsprocedural requirementsfee schedule
References
5
Case No. ADJ4406096 (LAO 0784412)
Regular

JOSE MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER

Defendant sought removal from a WCJ's order stipulating to two Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs), alleging the WCJ "forced" the agreement. Applicant's attorney and the WCJ countered that defense counsel had agreed to and proposed the AMEs, with the WCJ merely documenting the stipulation. The Appeals Board denied removal as defendant showed no prejudice, but initiated its own removal to address the attorney's alleged false statements and vexatious tactics. Consequently, the Board intends to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 on the defendant and its attorneys for filing a frivolous petition containing misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorsWCJSanctionsBad Faith TacticsFrivolousUnnecessary DelayStipulationMisrepresentation of Facts
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 9,236 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