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. ADJ9116549
Regular
Mar 13, 2020

EMMA MEDINA vs. SUNRISE RESTAURANT, LLC, DENNY'S RESTAURANT, CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CHUBB INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns the reimbursement for lien claimant Preferred Scan's copy services. The Board granted reconsideration to clarify what constitutes medical-legal expenses and the reasonable value of copy services. The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and returned the matter for further proceedings, finding that certain copy services for medical records were properly considered medical-legal expenses. However, the reasoning for doubling the copy service fee schedule was insufficient and requires further development at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantCopy ServicesMedical-Legal ServicesCopy Service Fee ScheduleLabor CodeSubpoena Duces TecumExplanation of ReviewCompromise and Release
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brentwood Pain & Rehabilitation Services, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance

This opinion addresses whether Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedures are subject to the same fee limitations as X-rays under New York's no-fault auto insurance law. Plaintiffs, a group of MRI service providers ("Providers"), argued that applying x-ray fee schedules to MRIs is improper and violates insurance contracts. Defendants, numerous insurance companies ("Insurers"), along with the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) and Department of Insurance (DOI), contended that the fee limitations for multiple diagnostic x-ray procedures (Ground Rule 3 of the WCB Fee Schedule) should also apply to MRIs. The court, deferring to the interpretations of the WCB and DOI, found their application of Ground Rule 3 to MRIs to be reasonable. Consequently, the court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, denied the Providers' cross-motion for summary judgment, and denied the Providers' motion for class certification as moot.

MRIX-rayNo-Fault InsuranceFee ScheduleWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of InsuranceRegulatory InterpretationSummary JudgmentClass ActionDiagnostic Imaging
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. ADJ1666303
Regular
Oct 21, 2011

ALTHEA RUSSELL vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, BROADSPIRE

This case involves a supplemental award of attorney's fees to the applicant's attorneys, Charles Clark and Stuart Barth, following a successful defense against the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to make this supplemental award under Labor Code § 5801. The WCAB reviewed the fee requests and, after disallowing fees for a separate sanctions motion, awarded Clark $2,800.00 and Barth $1,207.50 for their appellate services.

Labor Code § 5801supplemental attorney's feeswrit of reviewpetition for writ of reviewreasonable feeattorney servicesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSecuritas Security ServicesBroadspireCourt of Appeal
References
1
Case No. ADJ9344199
Regular
Feb 20, 2020

ZARAGOZA, Lima vs. DENCO ENTERPRISES, WILLIAMSBURG NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MEADOWBROOK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the findings of the administrative law judge (WCJ) concerning lien claimant Citywide Scanning Service's request for payment for copy services. The WCJ awarded Citywide $2,005.00 but denied reimbursement for a filing fee and dismissed other issues as moot. The WCAB rescinded the WCJ's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the WCJ did not adequately address the lien claimant's burden of proof regarding the reasonableness and necessity of its services. Furthermore, the WCAB indicated that the WCJ must provide a clear factual and legal basis for any awarded amount, rather than solely relying on the Copy Service Fee Schedule.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationFindings Orders and AwardCopy Services Fee ScheduleReasonable ValueBurden of ProofLabor Code 4622Explanation of Review60-day window
References
4
Case No. ADJ7613459
Regular
May 07, 2013

LUIS MARTINEZ vs. ANA TERRAZAS, ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO., ADMINISTERED BY SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Appeals Board ruled that medical-legal expenses, including copy service costs for obtaining medical records, cannot be recovered through a general petition for costs under Labor Code section 5811. Such claims must instead be pursued through the established lien process, which now includes a lien activation fee under Labor Code section 4903.06. Lien claimants who withdrew their liens prior to this decision and filed petitions for costs are permitted to reinstate their liens to pursue recovery, provided they comply with the lien activation fee requirements and their liens were not otherwise dismissed. This decision aims to provide uniformity and prevent parties from avoiding statutorily mandated fees through procedural maneuvers.

SB 863Lien activation feeMedical-legal expensesPetition for costsLabor Code section 5811Labor Code section 4903.06En banc decisionReconsiderationWithdrawal of lienReinstatement principle
References
20
Case No. ADJ7259313, ADJ7259058
Regular
May 13, 2013

JOSE GARATE vs. LEADING EDGE AVIATION SERVICES, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CHUBB SERVICES CORPORATION

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in a maximum of four sentences: This case involves lien claimants who petitioned for reconsideration after their liens were dismissed for failure to pay the required activation fee as mandated by Labor Code section 4903.06. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report which found the petition improper due to multiple claimants filing as one and violation of service rules. The judge's report emphasized that the lien activation fee was not paid by the lien claimants, necessitating dismissal with prejudice per statutory language. Therefore, the Board concluded the lien claimants' arguments regarding jurisdiction and service were without merit and upheld the dismissal orders.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsActivation FeeDismissal of LiensLabor Code Section 4903.06Due ProcessJurisdictionService of OrdersFinal Orders
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2008

Finkel v. Omega Communication Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Gerald Finkel, Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry, sued Omega Communication Services, Inc. for delinquent contributions to employee benefit plans under ERISA and LMRA. Omega failed to appear, leading to a default judgment motion. Magistrate Judge Azrack recommended granting default judgment, awarding $122,846.59 to the plaintiff, including unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. District Judge John Gleeson adopted this Report and Recommendation, directing the clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the recommendation. The case details calculations for various benefit plans and addresses the reasonableness of attorney fees and costs.

ERISALMRADefault JudgmentDelinquent ContributionsEmployee BenefitsMulti-employer PlanAttorneys FeesLiquidated DamagesPrejudgment InterestCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 9,131 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