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. ADJ3817836 (SJO 0250881)
Regular
May 31, 2012

ZUFAN A. REDA vs. FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case concerns applicant Zufan A. Reda's claim for permanent total disability due to a psychiatric injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is ordering the development of the record because neither the applicant's QME, Dr. Sidle, nor the defendant's QME, Dr. Keins, provided substantial evidence regarding the apportionment of psychiatric permanent disability. The WCAB found that Dr. Sidle's report incorrectly addressed causation of injury rather than apportionment of disability, and Dr. Keins' report was rejected as non-substantial due to prior rulings on industrial causation. Therefore, the WCAB has appointed Dr. Roy Curry as a "regular physician" to conduct a new evaluation on the issue of psychiatric permanent disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationDevelopment of RecordLabor Code section 5701Industrial InjuryPsychiatric InjuryCompensable ConsequenceSection 5803Section 5804Section 5410Permanent Total Disability
References
3
Case No. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. ADJ3080176 (LAO 0871214)
Regular
Sep 14, 2018

ROSS ISAACS vs. DOUG APATOW AGENCY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's order allowing the deposition of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Berman. Defendant argued the deposition was improper because Dr. Berman's prior reports were stricken from the record. However, the Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, noting the order permitted further record development. The Board clarified that even if Dr. Berman's reports were considered stricken, the WCJ could still develop the record by seeking supplemental information from the AME.

Removal petitionAgreed Medical EvaluatorOtorhinolaryngologyMinute OrderPetition to StrikeOrder Taking Case Off CalendarSupplemental medical reportsDepositionSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
10
Case No. ADJ7877096
Regular
Jan 23, 2017

OGANES KARDZHYAN vs. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, CHARTIS INSURANCE CO./AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ failed to address the substantiality of Dr. Pietruszka's opinion regarding industrial causation for psoriatic arthritis, diabetes, and headaches. The Board amended the WCJ's findings to include previously established injuries and returned the matter for further proceedings. The WCJ is directed to consider Dr. Pietruszka's opinion and develop the record on orthopedic injuries. This decision is not final and allows for future reconsideration of the WCJ's new ruling.

Petition for ReconsiderationMedical OpinionPsoriatic ArthritisDiabetesHeadachesIndustrially CausedSubstantial Medical EvidenceDevelop the RecordOrthopedic InjuriesPsyche
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibides v. Powell

This document presents a dissenting opinion in a medical malpractice case involving defendant Douglas N. Powell, M.D., an obstetrician. The plaintiff's decedent experienced heart disease symptoms, but Dr. Powell's medical records only noted wrist discomfort, attributed to carpal tunnel syndrome. The dissent argues there was no proof the decedent had heart disease symptoms when she saw Dr. Powell or that she reported them to him. It further contends that the absence of a record does not prove a history was not taken and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reliance on Dr. Powell's records to the decedent's detriment. The case involved an appeal from an Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, concerning summary judgment.

medical malpracticeobstetricscarpal tunnel syndromeheart diseasesummary judgmentmedical recordsexpert testimonydissenting opinionappellate reviewcausation
References
3
Case No. ADJ17378619
Regular
Mar 24, 2025

NAOMI RIVERS vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CORPORATION

The applicant, Naomi Rivers, sought reconsideration of a Findings, Award, and Order (FA&O) from December 23, 2024, which found an injury to her left leg but no permanent disability based on a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) report. The applicant contended that the QME, Dr. Anthony Fenison, failed to adequately account for her current medical condition and relied on outdated information by not reviewing updated medical records from Dr. James Rho. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the original FA&O, and substituted it with an order deferring permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney's fees pending further development of the record. This includes a reevaluation of the applicant by Dr. Fenison, incorporating all updated medical records.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Substantial Medical EvidencePermanent DisabilityApportionmentFuture Medical TreatmentComplex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)NeuropathyNerve Conduction Study (NCV/EMG)
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McBarnette v. Feldman

This case addresses proceedings initiated by the New York Attorney-General on behalf of the Department of Health (DOH) and by an individual patient, Gail Eileen Strouse, following the death of Dr. Philip Feldman, a dentist who succumbed to AIDS. The DOH sought to compel the administrator of Dr. Feldman's estate to release patient records for an epidemiological study into potential HIV transmission, a request the estate opposed citing physician-patient privilege and confidentiality laws. The court granted the DOH's motion, ruling that public health interests and DOH's statutory authority for investigations supersede these objections, with assurances of confidentiality for the data. Concurrently, Ms. Strouse's attempts to intervene in the DOH action, consolidate her separate tort claim against the estate, and certify it as a class action were all denied, as her individual claims and proof requirements were deemed distinct and unsuitable for such treatment.

Public Health LawHIV/AIDS ConfidentialityPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumEpidemiological StudyClass Action DenialCase Consolidation DenialInfected Healthcare WorkerMedical Records AccessPatient Data Disclosure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Andrews v. Bruk

The case addresses the tort of intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. Plaintiff Mr. Andrews sued defendant Dr. Bruk, alleging that Dr. Bruk improperly accessed Mr. Andrews' confidential hospital records, specifically regarding a vasectomy, and used them as an exhibit in Dr. Bruk's own divorce action without consent. Plaintiff also claimed a violation of his right to privacy, but the court noted New York does not recognize a common-law right to privacy for such disputes. However, the court found that Dr. Bruk's actions, involving the unauthorized acquisition and use of confidential medical records, could reasonably be regarded as 'extreme and outrageous conduct,' satisfying the rigorous standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the defendant's application to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint was denied.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressRight to PrivacyMedical Records ConfidentialityUnauthorized DisclosureExtreme and Outrageous ConductTort LawMotion to DismissPhysician-Patient PrivilegeCivil Rights LawCPLR
References
29
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24320
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2024

D.P. v. S.P.

This case involves a custody dispute between D.P. (Plaintiff) and S.P. (Defendant) concerning their two minor children in Westchester County, New York. The defendant sought to compel the plaintiff to release psychotherapy notes and medical records from her former and current mental health professionals (Dr. O.K. and Dr. A.L.). The defendant argued these records were essential for trial preparation, alleging the plaintiff had a personality disorder and received in-patient psychiatric treatment. The plaintiff and the treating professionals' counsel opposed, asserting confidentiality and that substantial medical records had already been disclosed to a court-appointed forensic evaluator. The court affirmed that psychotherapy notes can be discoverable in custody cases but ruled that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the specific information sought was not already available from the extensive records previously provided. Consequently, the defendant's motion for disclosure was denied, and the plaintiff's cross-motion to deny the disclosure was granted.

Custody DisputeChild WelfarePsychotherapy Notes DisclosureMental Health RecordsParental FitnessConfidentiality WaiverProtective OrderIn Camera ReviewBest Interests of the ChildForensic Evaluation
References
15
Case No. ADJ6871732
Regular
Oct 26, 2019

TAMORA WHITFIELD vs. ONLINE CAR STEREO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a judge's award for Dr. Richards' services. While finding Dr. Sobol was the primary treating physician and referred applicant for lab tests, the Board determined the record lacked sufficient evidence to prove the reasonableness and necessity of Dr. Richards' specific treatments. Consequently, the original award was rescinded, and the case was remanded for further proceedings to develop the record regarding the exact services provided by the lien claimant.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLumbosacral spine injuryDr. RichardsOfficial Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS)Labor Code Section 4622Treatment lienReasonableness of chargesPrimary treating physician
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,028 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