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

MEDICAL ECONOMICS CO. v. Prescribing Reference, Inc.

This memorandum opinion and order addresses Prescribing Reference Incorporated's (PRI) motion for a preliminary injunction against Medical Economics Company and ME Licensing Corporation (MEC). PRI sought to prevent MEC from using the title 'PDR Monthly Prescribing Guide,' alleging trademark infringement and irreparable harm. The Court denied PRI's motion, concluding that PRI did not adequately demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm, noting the lack of concrete evidence for shifting advertising revenue or actual consumer confusion. Furthermore, the Court assessed PRI's likelihood of success on the merits of its trademark infringement claim as weak, considering the descriptive nature of PRI's mark, MEC's use of its well-known 'PDR' house mark, and the sophistication of the target audience, medical professionals.

Preliminary InjunctionTrademark InfringementIrreparable HarmLikelihood of ConfusionDescriptive TrademarksHouse MarksConsumer SophisticationHealthcare PublicationsTrademark StrengthInjunctive Relief
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.)

Keene Corporation, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed an adversary proceeding against 27 law firms, alleging they forced Keene into bankruptcy through fraudulent asbestos-related tort claims. The defendant law firms moved to withdraw the reference of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, citing complex federal statutes (Antitrust and RICO) and a jury trial right. Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg also appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a civil contempt proceeding. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, denied the defendants' motion to withdraw the reference, deeming it premature, and dismissed LPK's interlocutory appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling on contempt. The court determined the adversary proceeding was non-core and did not warrant mandatory or discretionary withdrawal at this early stage.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingWithdrawal of ReferenceInterlocutory AppealCivil ContemptAntitrust LawRICO ActAsbestos LitigationFederal JurisdictionCore vs. Non-Core Proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Poey v. Eggleston

Plaintiff Linda Poey, a licensed child care provider, sued the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) for unpaid child care services rendered to families on public assistance. HRA had referred these families to Poey but failed to notify her when the families became ineligible for child care benefits due to non-compliance with work accountability requirements, despite its own reference guide promising such notification. Poey sought reimbursement under theories of implied contract or quasi-contract for services provided to the Sanchez and Scatliffe families, as well as interest for a late payment to the Peguero family. The court found that HRA had the authority to enter agreements with care providers and would be unjustly enriched if Poey was not compensated for services rendered to HRA's clients. Therefore, the court granted Poey's motion for summary judgment and denied HRA's motion.

Quasi-contractImplied contractQuantum MeruitMunicipality liabilityChild care servicesPublic assistanceHuman Resources Administration (HRA)Welfare-to-work programsBenefit terminationUnjust enrichment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.)

This case involves motions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) for mandatory withdrawal of reference from the Bankruptcy Court. The plaintiffs sought rulings that their claims against Johns-Manville Corporation, related to asbestos waste cleanup costs under CERCLA, were not barred by the automatic bankruptcy stay. The District Court examined whether the resolution of these adversary proceedings required substantial and material consideration of both the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11) and other federal laws, specifically CERCLA. Finding that significant interpretation of both federal statutes was necessary to determine when the claims arose and their interaction with the automatic stay, the court granted the motions.

BankruptcyWithdrawal of ReferenceCERCLAAutomatic StayEnvironmental LawFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationContributionIndemnificationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. ADJ7162019
Regular
Aug 13, 2010

Abraham Avila vs. Victory Outreach San Bernardino, Guide One Ins. Co.

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Victory Outreach San Bernardino, and its insurer, Guide One Ins. Co. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted this petition. The Board determined that reconsideration is necessary to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Further proceedings may be held pending the issuance of a Decision After Reconsideration.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationVICTORY OUTREACH SAN BERNARDINOGUIDE ONE INS. CO.ABRAHAM AVILAOPINION AND ORDERGRANTING PETITIONSTATUTORY TIME CONSTRAINTSFACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUESJUST AND REASONED DECISION
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. ADJ3849676 (AHM 0147658) ADJ1948081 (AHM 0147721)
Regular
Feb 14, 2011

ROBERT LEON vs. RF DEVELOPMENT & BUSCH CORPORATION, LINCOLN GENERAL INSURANCE

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a $37\%$ permanent disability award, arguing the physician's impairment rating improperly deviated from the AMA Guides. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the physician's justification for not strictly applying the Guides was insufficient and not based on substantial medical evidence. Specifically, the physician's reliance on subjective complaints and analogies to amputation were not adequately supported. The Board rescinded the award and remanded the case for a new rating strictly following the AMA Guides.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRF Development & Busch CorporationLincoln General InsuranceAmerican Claims ManagementRobert LeonADJ3849676ADJ1948081ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial Injuries
References
2
Case No. ADJ9890148
Regular
Feb 02, 2017

Timothy Bedford vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case denies reconsideration of a permanent disability rating. The Board affirmed the use of Figure 15-19 of the AMA Guides, finding it permissible to use any chapter or method within the Guides that most accurately reflects impairment. The Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion was deemed substantial, as he explained how Figure 15-19 was used to derive a more accurate rating based on the applicant's specific spinal condition. The decision also distinguished the current case from prior panel decisions regarding the application of the AMA Guides and work limitations.

AMA Guidespermanent disability ratingrebuttable presumptionwhole person impairmentAlmaraz/Guzman IIclinical judgmentagreed medical evaluator (AME)Figure 15-19functional losssurgical-grade disc herniations
References
7
Case No. ADJ6788177
Regular
May 13, 2015

GREGORY GREENE vs. CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEMS, SEDGWICK CMS

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged a $75\%$ permanent disability award, arguing the primary treating physician's rating improperly combined various lower extremity impairments, violating the AMA Guides. The Board found the WCJ's reliance on the physician's opinion was supported by substantial evidence, emphasizing the need for accurate, not mechanical, application of the Guides. A dissenting opinion argued the rating was not substantial evidence as it failed to follow proper *Almaraz-Guzman* procedures for deviating from strict AMA Guides application and advocated for remand.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAmended Findings and AwardPetition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurypermanent disabilitylife pensionLabor Code section 4658 (d) increasesubstantial medical evidenceLabor Code section 4660 (b)(1)AMA Guides
References
4
Case No. ADJ285115 (STK 0203659)
Regular
May 17, 2010

ARTEMIO GONZALEZ vs. RANGEL DRYWALL, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury to his left lower extremity, specifically a fractured ankle requiring surgery. The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's award of 30% permanent disability, arguing the panel QME's reports lacked specific measurements and explanations required by the AMA Guides. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the QME's deposition testimony, which provided detailed explanations and measurements, constituted substantial evidence. The Board clarified that while AMA Guides sections must be followed, physicians can use their clinical judgment and specific tables within the Guides as long as the basis is explained.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardArtemio GonzalezRangel DrywallState Compensation Insurance FundPermanent DisabilityMedical TreatmentConstruction WorkerQualified Medical ExaminerAMA GuidesPermanent Impairment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 810 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