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. 2015-2418 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Remedial Med. Care, P.C. v. Park Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, Park Insurance Co., sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint filed by Remedial Medical Care, P.C., as assignee of Thomas Brown. The Civil Court initially denied the motion but found that the defendant had established timely mailing of denials. The Appellate Term modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendant for a bill of services rendered on August 23, 2012, as it was paid according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. However, for the remaining bills, the defendant failed to prove timely mailing of IME scheduling letters, thus failing to demonstrate that the IMEs were properly scheduled or that the assignor failed to appear. Therefore, the denial of summary judgment for the remaining claims was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault BenefitsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Timely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermCivil CourtDenial of ClaimFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ9606608, ADJ9606605
Regular
Nov 27, 2017

Elsa Cordon vs. Renaissance Los Angeles Hotel Airport, Marriott Claims Services

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding it an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. The defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Specifically, the applicant's primary treating physician was stipulated, and no evidence showed a subsequent establishment of care with a different physician. The defendant retains other available legal remedies.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical-Legal EvaluatorAdmissibilityFinal Decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ7125024
Regular
Apr 07, 2014

JOSHUA INGMAN vs. GRANT'S BOBCAT AND HAULING, R4CORPORATION, INC., LABOR READY, CITY OF SACRAMENTO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, CASTLEPOINT NATIONAL INSURANCE, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund's (UEBTF) Petition for Removal. The Board found that the UEBTF failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's decision. Furthermore, the Board noted that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision ultimately issued. Given the significant delay in the applicant receiving benefits, the ongoing insurance coverage arbitration, and the UEBTF's available remedies for recovery, removal was deemed an inappropriate extraordinary remedy.

RemovalUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundUEBTFSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationInsurance CoverageArbitrationLabor Code Section 2750.5Meier case
References
3
Case No. ADJ7932962; ADJ7932963; ADJ11544304
Regular
Dec 12, 2019

APRIL TORRES vs. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, deeming it an extraordinary remedy not warranted in this case. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The defendant's contention of abuse of discretion by the WCJ for not striking amended applications was rejected, as objections to these amendments remain available for trial. The defendant's claim of having no other remedy was also refuted, with the Board suggesting filing a new Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to Trial on all issues.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAshley Furniture IndustriesZurich American InsuranceApril TorresADJ7932962ADJ7932963ADJ11544304WCJMinute Order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. ADJ3593389 (VNO 0327097) ADJ1373027 (VNO 0327930) ADJ3316700 (VNO 0326839) ADJ4178443 (VNO 0326834) ADJ974570 (VNO 0326833)
Regular
Apr 25, 2019

MARIA YRIBE vs. U. S. SALES CORPORATION

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denies Maria Yribe's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not met here. The Board found that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision is adverse. Therefore, the petition is denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadministrative law judgeextraordinary remedyfinal decisionadverse to petitionerCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. ADJ10650148, ADJ10650276
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

MEIMY AWAD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/USC MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted, requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationWCJ reportextraordinary remedyADJ10650148ADJ10650276Meimy Awad
References
2
Case No. ADJ526691, ADJ3636578
Regular
Mar 28, 2013

Jitka Van Dyne vs. United Airlines, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for removal. The WCAB adopted the Judge's report, stating removal is an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. The applicant failed to object to the declaration of readiness and has an adequate remedy at trial for evidentiary disputes. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceDeclaration of ReadinessAdmissibility of EvidenceDue DiligenceAneurysmIndustrial InjuryLay Opinion
References
3
Case No. ADJ9517344
Regular
Mar 01, 2019

Craig Marcom vs. Twin Rivers Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal in Case No. ADJ9517344. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found the applicant failed to demonstrate these grounds and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportFinal DecisionAdverse DecisionCase ADJ9517344
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,945 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