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. ADJ869205 (SAC 0294976) ADJ302322 (SAC 0354178)
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

Patricia Rush vs. The Permanente Medical Group; Athens Administrators Concord

This case involves Patricia Rush claiming cumulative trauma injuries to her knees and back, among other body parts, against The Permanente Medical Group. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the Administrative Law Judge's findings of industrial causation for knee injuries lacked substantial medical evidence, with conflicting and uncertain Qualified Medical Evaluator opinions. The Board rescinded the prior findings and ordered further development of the medical record, suggesting an Agreed Medical Examiner or a court-appointed physician to resolve the causation issue for the knee injuries. The matter is returned to the trial level for a new final determination after the record is further developed on all issues, including injury causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanente Medical GroupAthens Administratorscumulative trauma injurykneesbackshouldershandswristsindustrial causation
References
0
Case No. ADJ11255525
Regular
Dec 02, 2019

GWENDOLYN JOHNIGAN vs. UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER

This case involves an applicant denied workers' compensation benefits for industrial injury to her right leg and knee, with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denying her petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury, relying on a panel qualified medical evaluator's opinion that the work duties were insufficient to cause an injury. The applicant argued the medical evidence was not substantial and sought further development of the record. However, the WCAB found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof with substantial medical evidence. A dissenting opinion argued the medical evidence was insubstantial and required further development.

Petition for ReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorOrthopedistSubstantial Medical EvidenceFurther DevelopmentSupplemental ReportingDeposition TestimonyIndustrial InjuryRight LegRight Knee
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Development Corp.

The court reviewed CPLR article 78 petitions challenging the New York State Urban Development Corp.'s (ESDC) modification of the Atlantic Yards Project plan under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Petitioners argued ESDC irrationally maintained a 10-year project build-out date and failed to mandate a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), despite significant project delays outlined in new agreements. The court found ESDC's continued use of the 10-year build date arbitrary and capricious and its environmental analysis inadequate, necessitating an SEIS to address prolonged construction impacts. However, the court denied a stay on Phase I construction, citing its advanced stage and prior environmental review.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAAtlantic Yards ProjectProject Build-Out DelaySupplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)Rational Basis ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDevelopment AgreementMTA AgreementNeighborhood Character Impacts
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein v. A.D. Development Ltd.

Frank Klein's motion to consolidate action numbers 1 and 2 was granted without opposition. Defendant Kala Zaveri, also president of A.D. Development Ltd., filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the consolidated action, arguing she was exempt from liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as an owner of a single-family dwelling. However, the court denied her motion, finding that the dwelling was part of a commercial enterprise intended for resale, not personal use. The court reasoned that the homeowner's exemption did not apply to commercial developers, emphasizing the statute's intent to place responsibility for worker safety on those best suited to provide such safeguards.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Homeowner ExemptionCommercial EnterpriseSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationWorker SafetyConsolidated ActionDeveloper LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The plaintiff, Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C., sought $950 in first-party no-fault benefits for biofeedback medical services provided to its assignor for lower back and chronic pain syndrome. The central issue at trial was the medical necessity of these services under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1). The plaintiff established a prima facie case with expert testimony from a board-certified neurologist affirming the medical appropriateness of biofeedback. The defendant insurance company failed to present admissible evidence to disprove medical necessity, as its expert was deemed incompetent to testify on biofeedback for back pain. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, awarding judgment for $950 along with statutory costs, interest, and attorney's fees.

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityBiofeedback treatmentExpert testimonyDirected verdictInsurance lawChronic pain syndromeBack injuryCPT codesBurden of proof
References
9
Case No. ADJ8300605
Regular
Sep 12, 2013

LATOYA ARRINGTON, LATOYA ARRINGTON-ARTIS vs. SUPPORT MEDICAL FOUNDATION, SUTTER HEALTH SACRAMENTO, SUTTER MEDICAL FOUNDATION

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal that was dismissed and denied, respectively, by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration was improperly taken from interlocutory orders and that removal was not warranted as the defendant failed to show irreparable harm or prejudice. The underlying dispute involves the WCJ's decision to order further development of the medical record after trial, despite the applicant's failure to object to the defendant's declaration of readiness. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, which found no irreparable harm or significant prejudice to the defendant from the order to develop the record.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceAOE-COECumulative TraumaDeclaration of Readiness
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

A claimant sustained a work-related back injury and sought continued medical treatment, which was initially authorized. Disputes over authorization led the claimant to retain an attorney. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge authorized continued medical treatment but denied counsel fees, stating no "money passing" occurred. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board unconstitutionally applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, misinterpreted the statute regarding fee payment from medical benefits, and abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees must be paid from "compensation," defined as a money allowance, and medical benefits are not considered "compensation" for this purpose, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palmer v. State University of New York Upstate Medical University

The claimant, an orthopedic hand surgeon, developed cervical radiculopathy and degenerative disc disease due to the physical strain of performing hand surgery and filed for workers' compensation benefits. His claim was controverted by the State University of New York Upstate Medical University and its carrier, as well as the Research Foundation of New York and its carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant was a dual employee of both the University and the Foundation and that his condition constituted a causally related occupational disease. The University and its carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding there was substantial evidence to support both the dual employment status and the existence of a recognizable link between the claimant's condition and the distinctive features of his occupation.

Occupational DiseaseCervical RadiculopathyDegenerative Disc DiseaseDual EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHand Surgery StrainMedical OpinionAppellate ReviewCausationEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. SJO 199862, SJO 215020
Regular
Feb 15, 2008

DIANE S. LORD vs. CAMINO MEDICAL GROUP, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION BROADSPIRE, L.L.C., INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a Supplemental Joint Findings and Award because the administrative law judge's decision did not adequately address the apportionment of causation for the applicant's permanent disability. Specifically, the Board required further medical development to determine if the applicant's left shoulder and upper extremity injury was a compensable consequence of a prior specific injury or a separate cumulative trauma injury, and how these injuries impacted the permanent disability award. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision after the medical record is sufficiently developed.

CIGAliquidationcompensable consequence injurycumulative trauma injuryStipulated Awardgood cause to reopenjoint awardpermanent disabilityapportionmentcausation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 9,886 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