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
Jan 22, 2004

Mete v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation

This class action alleged age discrimination in employment against the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities (OMRDD). Plaintiffs, former Chiefs of Developmental Center Treatment Services, claimed disparate treatment and disparate impact arising from a 1989 reduction in force (RIF) that eliminated their positions. All 46 Chiefs, who were over 40, were either demoted or retired, and statistical evidence showed a disproportionate impact on employees over 40. The Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while plaintiffs established a prima facie case, OMRDD provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the RIF (economic conditions and long-standing concerns about the position's utility), which plaintiffs failed to adequately prove was a pretext for discrimination.

Age DiscriminationClass ActionSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactReduction in ForceEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie CaseStatistical Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Evevsky v. Liberty Mutual Group

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's unauthorized medical treatment. The claimant, who sustained neck and shoulder injuries in 1993, had her case reopened in 2001 after the employer's carrier objected to her request for authorized massage therapy. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that the treatment was not authorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-b, as the massage therapist was not Board-authorized nor supervised by an authorized physician. The appellate court reviewed the Board's decision, affirming that there was no legal basis to overturn the finding. The court also considered and dismissed the claimant's constitutional arguments as being without merit.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentMassage TherapyAuthorizationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPhysician SupervisionConstitutionalityPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ3552048 (LAO 0795520)
Regular
Feb 28, 2011

JAVIER GALINDO vs. MEAT EXPORTE CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant's appeal challenging the disallowance of psychiatric treatment costs. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the original decision, finding the applicant did not meet the six-month actual work requirement under Labor Code section 3208.3(d) for psychiatric injury claims. The applicant's extensive absences due to an admitted orthopedic injury meant he did not perform six months of actual service. The WCAB clarified that this six-month threshold applies even to psychiatric injuries stemming from admitted physical injuries. The lien claimant's arguments regarding detrimental reliance and the necessity of treatment for the orthopedic injury were also rejected.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix months actual worklien claimantindustrial orthopedic injurydetrimentally reliedimplied authorizationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 1979

Claim of Carley v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

The Workers’ Compensation Board filed a decision on September 13, 1979, finding that the claimant's disability after January 21, 1977, was causally related to an industrial accident on January 1, 1977. The Board also determined that the claimant's subsequent treatment at the Veterans Administration Hospital was necessary and authorized. This determination was based on Dr. Russo's testimony. The court reviewed the appeal and found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's decision. Consequently, the decision was affirmed, with costs awarded to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Industrial AccidentCausally Related DisabilityMedical Treatment AuthorizationWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard DecisionVeterans Administration HospitalMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAffirmed Decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ2593762 (SAC 0363364)
Regular
Jul 13, 2012

RICHARD HODGE vs. DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY EXPRESS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision to provide psychiatric treatment. Even if the need for psychiatric treatment stems from a potentially non-compensable psychiatric injury, the employer remains liable if the treatment is reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of a compensable industrial injury. In this case, the applicant's psychiatric treatment was deemed necessary to address cognitive impairment caused by a compensable traumatic brain injury. Therefore, the employer is liable for this treatment under established case law, regardless of the nuances of the six-month employment rule.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary exceptionsix-month employment rulemedical treatmentLabor Code section 4600reasonably requiredcure or relievenon-compensable injurypsychiatric treatmenttraumatic brain injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ2500591 (MON 0340362) ADJ1965867 (LBO 0302615)
Regular
May 13, 2011

Kenneth Tarvin vs. ROADWAY EXPRESS, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSET SERVICES

This case involves a lien claimant, Dr. Kenneth Webb, seeking reconsideration of a decision that limited his reimbursement for applicant Kenneth Tarvin's medical treatment. Dr. Webb argued for reimbursement for more than the allowed 24 visits, citing two separate injuries and post-surgical treatment exemptions. However, the Appeals Board denied his petition, finding insufficient substantial medical evidence to rebut the established treatment guidelines or support treatment for the cumulative trauma claim. The Board affirmed the original finding of entitlement to payment for 22 treatments at the reasonable value of services rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantFindings of Fact and OrderReasonable Value of Services (RVS)Labor Code 4604.5(d)(1)24 visit capIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaCompromise and Release (C&R)
References
8
Case No. ADJ7660641
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

BREANNA CLIFTON vs. SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION (KMART CORPORATION), administered by SEDGWICK CMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an award finding industrial injury to claimant's knee, foot, and ankle, temporary disability, and reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment. Defendant contested the award of temporary disability and self-procured treatment based on claimant's treatment outside the employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN), citing *Valdez*. The WCAB found the original decision lacked sufficient explanation regarding the MPN establishment and notice, and the employer's liability for self-procured treatment. Therefore, the WCAB amended the award to defer issues of temporary disability, self-procured treatment, and attorney's fees for further proceedings at the trial level.

MPNValdezKnightself-procured treatmentprimary treating physicianindustrial injurytemporary disabilityreconsiderationmedical provider networkWCJ
References
5
Case No. ADJ7781676
Regular
Nov 01, 2017

TERESA HERNANDEZ vs. T K & J, INC., dba LAS PALMAS RESTAURANT, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claim by Comprehensive Outpatient Surgery Center for medical treatment provided to applicant Teresa Hernandez. The applicant sustained a complex injury in 2010, and the employer provided some treatment through Dr. Lane, an MPN physician, including surgeries. The lien claimant contended that proper MPN notice was not provided and that the applicant was therefore entitled to seek treatment outside the MPN. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that the lien claimant failed to demonstrate that any lack of notice resulted in a denial of reasonable medical treatment, a burden of proof established by statute. Therefore, the employer was not liable for the applicant's self-procured treatment with non-MPN providers.

MPNLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical Provider NetworkReasonably Necessary Medical TreatmentSelf-ProcureBurden of ProofLabor CodeSB 863
References
4
Case No. ADJ5096605
Regular
May 28, 2013

JACK ODAY vs. WICKES LUMBER CORP., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that deemed a defense medical report admissible but insufficient to justify denial of treatment and ordered treatment consistent with the applicant's treating physician. The WCAB found both Dr. Lipton's report inadmissible as substantial evidence due to its age and lack of examination, and Dr. Dayton's treatment recommendations deficient for not specifying industrial injury causation. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the previous order, returning the case for further development of the record to determine necessary industrial injury treatment and to allow for a proper medical-legal evaluation. The Board denied removal but granted reconsideration to correct the procedural and substantive issues regarding medical evidence and treatment authorization.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeMedical TreatmentStipulated AwardPrimary Treating PhysicianQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical-Legal Evaluation
References
10
Case No. ADJ3989406 (SDO 0252973) ADJ3350463 (SDO 0252974)
Regular

ZAYDA HERRING vs. PARADISE VALLEY HOSPITAL

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and found the defendant liable for the requested medical treatment. While the original judge denied treatment due to stale reports and unknown current need, the Board found the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion established the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment at the time of the requests. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the awarded treatment and reimbursement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationIndependent Medical ReviewAgreed Medical ExaminerPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardMedical TreatmentPsychiatric InjuryPrescription Medications
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,245 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