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. ADJ1571027 (LAO 0858249) ADJ2009911 (LAO 0858250)
Regular
Nov 02, 2011

STEPHANIE NEAL vs. LOWE'S, SEDGWICK 14450 LONG BEACH

This case concerns a lien claimant, Dr. Burstein, who sought reconsideration after his lien was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Judge. The dismissal was based on Dr. Burstein's repeated failure to appear at multiple scheduled hearings, despite receiving a Notice of Intent to Dismiss. While Dr. Burstein argued for relief under CCP § 473 and WCAB Rule 10866, citing clerical error and inadvertence, the Appeals Board found his explanations unconvincing. The Board concluded that Dr. Burstein failed to provide good cause for his multiple no-shows and denied his petition for reconsideration.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intent to DismissFailure to AppearGood Faith ObjectionClerical ErrorWCAB Rule 10866CCP 473Compromise and Release
References
1
Case No. ADJ2296444 (LAO 0786271)
Regular
Feb 10, 2015

CAROLYN HOLMAN vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, P S-I, A B SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a WCJ's decision denying liens for Dr. Burstein and The Prescription Center. The Board found no evidence Dr. Burstein treated the applicant for industrial injuries, nor that his services or charges were reasonable and necessary. Consequently, The Prescription Center's lien for filling prescriptions from Dr. Burstein was also denied as not related to the industrial injury. Both lien claimants failed to meet their burden of proof regarding the reasonableness and necessity of their claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersWCJStipulations with Request for AwardIndustrial injuryReasonableness of chargesNecessity of servicesBurden of proof
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1999

Faele v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Rosemary Faele, a nurse at Coney Island Hospital, sustained an eye irritation and received brief examinations from defendants Dr. Barry Eppinger and Dr. An-nan Das in the hospital's emergency room. Her condition worsened, and she was later diagnosed with a severe eye infection by a private ophthalmologist. Though compensated via Workers' Compensation, Faele and her husband initiated a medical malpractice action against the doctors and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint by granting summary judgment to the defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that a sufficient nexus existed between Faele's employment and the alleged malpractice, thereby precluding a common-law malpractice claim and limiting her recourse to Workers' Compensation.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' Compensation PreclusionSummary Judgment AffirmationEmployment-Related InjuryHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical TreatmentAppellate Division DecisionPersonal InjuryDoctor-Patient NexusConey Island Hospital
References
4
Case No. ADJ9818600; ADJ8873873; ADJ9985778
Regular
Mar 22, 2023

FRANKIE URSSERY vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This case involved a dispute over payment for lien claimant Dr. Darrell Burstein's medical services. Initially, the WCJ ruled the services reasonable but not payable due to a procedural issue regarding a secondary review. Upon reconsideration, the parties successfully negotiated a settlement. The Appeals Board approved the Stipulation to pay Dr. Burstein $6,500.00 as full and final resolution, rescinding the prior WCJ decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationAmended Findings of Fact and OrderWCJInternal MedicineDr. SobolStipulationSettlementLabor Code Sec. 5313
References
2
Case No. ADJ4225400 (MON0336507)
Regular
Sep 27, 2010

NANCY GILPEN vs. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, BROADSPIRE

This case involved a discrepancy between verified statements from Dr. Burstein's collections manager and the defendant's attorney regarding service of notice and evidence for a trial. The Appeals Board removed the case to address potential sanctions due to this conflict. While proofs of service suggested documents were sent to Dr. Burstein, the Board could not definitively conclude intent to falsify. Therefore, the Board rescinded its notice of intention to impose sanctions and will not impose them.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsVerified PleadingsMaterial DiscrepancyCollections ManagerLaw FirmPetition for ReconsiderationService of NoticeTrial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York Hospital

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, filed an action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against The New York Hospital, its President Dr. David Skinner, and Assistant Director of Nursing Mr. Jody Sklar, alleging unlawful employment termination due to an alcoholism relapse. The plaintiff objected to a protective order preventing Dr. Skinner's deposition, while defendants sought to dismiss claims against individual defendants. The court granted dismissal against Mr. Sklar but denied it for Dr. Skinner, finding that individuals responsible for discriminatory decisions can be liable under the Act, especially those in positions to accept federal funds. Consequently, the protective order against deposing Dr. Skinner was set aside.

Rehabilitation Actemployment discriminationdisability rightsalcoholismindividual liabilitycorporate responsibilityprotective orderdiscoverymotion to dismiss
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rafiy v. Nassau County Medical Center

Dr. M. Pierre Rafiy and Dr. Philip Rafiy (the Rafiys) initiated a civil action against Nassau County Medical Center, Nassau County, Dr. Bruce Meinhard, and Dr. Anthony Angelo. Their claims, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Sherman Act, included deprivation of hospital privileges without due process, racial discrimination, and retaliation for exercising free speech rights. The Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the revoked assignments were not protected property interests and the Rafiys failed to exhaust state remedies. They also contended that the Rafiys' speech was not protected under the First Amendment and that evidence for discrimination was lacking. The court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts, concluding that no constitutional violations occurred and that the Rafiys' antitrust claim had been withdrawn.

Civil RightsDue ProcessFirst AmendmentEqual ProtectionRacial DiscriminationRetaliationHospital PrivilegesSummary JudgmentSherman ActAntitrust
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1989

Murphy v. Blum

Donald Murphy, an NBA referee, underwent a physical examination by defendant Dr. Richard Blum and a stress test analyzed by Blum, which was found "abnormal." The results were communicated to the NBA and Murphy's personal physician. Following a a cardiac arrest that ended his career, Murphy sued Dr. Blum for medical malpractice. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the complaint, ruling that no physician-patient relationship existed between Murphy and Dr. Blum because Blum was retained solely by the NBA for an examination, not for treatment. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, upholding that a doctor engaged for examination purposes only assumes duties associated with those functions, not duties concerning treatment or expert opinions.

Medical MalpracticePhysician-Patient RelationshipDuty of CareComplaint DismissalCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate ReviewProfessional Sports InjuryPre-employment ExaminationNo Physician-Patient RelationshipAffirmation of Order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roginsky v. County of Suffolk, NY

Plaintiff Dr. Martin Roginsky filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the County of Suffolk, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Executive Law. Roginsky, a physician, was constructively discharged from his Staff Physician role at the Suffolk County Jail. He claims the termination was due to his age, citing remarks made by Dr. Gerazi, the Medical Director of the Jail, and that the County used a prescription-writing issue as a pretext. The County moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting it was not Roginsky's employer and that age was not the 'but for' cause of his discharge. The Court denied the County's motion to dismiss, finding that Roginsky had plausibly alleged an employment relationship with the County and satisfied the 'but for' causation standard for his ADEA claim. Consequently, the Court also decided to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationADEAMotion to DismissConstructive DischargeEmployer-Employee RelationshipBut-For CausationPleading StandardsFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Law
References
24
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,317 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