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
Jun 02, 2008

Claim of Laezzo v. New York State Thruway Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related slip and fall in 2002, leading to injuries including his head, neck, back, and knees. His morbid obesity contributed to his back and knee issues, prompting him to seek authorization for gastric bypass surgery. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge approved the surgery, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which found the surgery causally related to the compensable injuries. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the causal link. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting substantial evidence that the claimant's weight gain was a result of the sedentary lifestyle imposed by his injuries, and that the surgery would aid in his recovery.

Workers' CompensationConsequential InjuryGastric Bypass SurgeryMorbid ObesityMedical Treatment AuthorizationCausationKnee InjuryBack InjurySedentary LifestyleBoard Decision Appeal
References
2
Case No. ADJ2496250
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

PATRICIA A. ORTIZ vs. SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, MONTEREY COUNTY SCHOOLS, WCJPA, administrator

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who sustained a low back injury in 1999, initially awarded 15% permanent disability. After reopening her case, an award of 23% permanent disability was issued, but the board clarified that gastric bypass surgery was not considered reasonably necessary treatment for the industrial injury. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration, but the Appeals Board ultimately affirmed the WCJ's findings and awards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryLow Back InjurySubstitute Health TechnicianPetition to ReopenGastric Bypass SurgerySelf-Procured Medical Treatment
References
0
Case No. ADJ2162178 (FRE 0200410) ADJ972133 (FRE 0197989)
Regular
Jun 22, 2011

SANDRA LAPLANTE vs. WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

This case involves applicant Sandra Laplante's claim for workers' compensation benefits from Walmart. The initial award found industrial injuries to her right knee, elbow, ankle, and psyche, resulting in 70% permanent disability for one claim and 10% for another, with no apportionment. Upon reconsideration, the Board found a potential for 10% apportionment of psychiatric disability to non-industrial causes, pending further review of whether gastric bypass surgery was industrially related. The applicant's petition for reconsideration of this apportionment, arguing the medical evidence was unsubstantiated, has been denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award and OrderAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionmentPsychiatric DisabilityNon-Industrial CausesGastric Bypass Surgery
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Casiano v. CCIP/Union Settlement Home Care

In March 2001, claimant sustained a work-related back injury. Neurosurgeon Richard J. Radna recommended and performed decompression surgery despite the workers' compensation carrier denying preauthorization for the procedure. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently ruled that the surgery was not medically necessary, thereby absolving the carrier of liability for its cost. Claimant and Radna appealed this determination to the appellate court. Radna's appeal was dismissed due to lack of standing, and the Board's decision was affirmed, as it was within its purview to resolve the conflicting medical evidence presented by Radna and the carrier's neurosurgeon regarding the necessity of the surgery.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical NecessitySurgical ProcedurePreauthorization DenialNeurological InjuryConflicting Medical OpinionsAppellate ReviewStanding IssueCarrier LiabilityBack Injury
References
3
Case No. LAO 0811779, LAO 0811780
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

ELENA BLANKEVOORT vs. HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, S&B SURGERY CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a trial judge's order disallowing a lien claim from S&B Surgery Center. The WCAB found that while S&B Surgery Center did have a required "surgical clinic" license, it failed to prove compliance with fictitious business name filing requirements. However, the WCAB returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, allowing S&B Surgery Center an opportunity to correct this procedural defect to recover on its lien.

Fictitious business nameLien claimantSurgical clinic licenseBusiness and Professions Code section 17910Medical BoardDepartment of Health ServicesBurden of proofReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOutpatient setting
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 1979

Woodward v. Black Clawson/Dilts Div.

The Workers' Compensation Board found the claimant's cardiac disability and surgery were causally related to an accidental injury on January 12, 1972, based on the testimony of Dr. A. Black. The court affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence in the record to support the board's determination. Costs were awarded to the Workers’ Compensation Board against the employer and its insurance carrier.

cardiac disabilitycardiac surgeryaccidental injurycausal relationshipmedical testimonyWorkers' Compensation Boardappeal affirmedemployer liabilityinsurance carrier liabilitysubstantial evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. North Shore Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C.

Frank Fernandez, an x-ray technician, sued his former employer, North Shore Orthopedic Surgery & Sports Medicine, P.C., for retaliation under Title VII after filing a national origin discrimination complaint. A jury found in favor of Fernandez, awarding back pay, front pay, and punitive damages. North Shore subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and to modify the damage awards. The court denied North Shore's motions for judgment and a new trial, affirmed the jury's back pay award, but vacated and reduced the front pay award from $160,000 to $50,000, and the punitive damages award from $100,000 to $50,000.

RetaliationTitle VIIEmployment DiscriminationBack PayFront PayPunitive DamagesMitigation of DamagesFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionEquitable Relief
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meyers v. Epstein

This case concerns a motion in limine filed by the plaintiffs, Samara Meyers and her parents, in a 'ghost surgery' case. The plaintiffs allege that a different surgeon, Dr. Ira Richmond Abbott, performed brain surgery on Samara than the one they consented to, Dr. Fred Epstein. Following the surgery, Samara experienced severe complications including left side paralysis and cognitive impairments. The plaintiffs sought to recover damages for these complications, arguing that they were proximately caused by the unauthorized surgery. However, the court denied their motion, ruling that under New York law, a plaintiff cannot recover for injuries that would have foreseeably resulted from the surgery even if performed by the consented doctor, especially without evidence of negligent performance. The court limited potential recovery to nominal damages and mental anguish for the unauthorized act itself, not the inherent risks or consequences of the surgery.

Ghost surgeryBatteryMedical malpracticeInformed consentCausationDamagesMotion in limineBrain surgery complicationsProximate causeIntentional torts
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Prescott v. Town of Lake Luzerne

A claimant fell off a dump truck at work in February 2008, landing on his right buttock and injuring his hip. The injury led to surgery in May 2008 to remove heterotopic bone and subsequent two-stage hip replacement revision surgeries in November 2008 and February 2009 due to an infection. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the initial surgery and subsequent revisions causally related to the work fall and supported compensation awards. The employer appealed, arguing that an independent medical examination (IME) was improperly precluded and that the initial surgery lacked proper authorization. The Appellate Division affirmed the preclusion of the IME due to untimeliness and upheld the causal relationship findings for the injury and subsequent surgeries. However, the court reversed the Board's determination that the May 2008 surgery was properly authorized, remitting that specific issue for further proceedings, while affirming all other appealed decisions.

Causal RelationshipIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Evidence PreclusionSurgery AuthorizationHip InjuryHeterotopic OssificationMedical Opinion ConflictDue ProcessRemittiturEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. ADJ900432 (SAC 0323091)
Regular
Dec 30, 2011

MARLENE COPUS vs. NORTH SACRAMENTO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves a dispute over the necessity of spinal surgery for an applicant who sustained a cumulative trauma injury to her neck and back. While the applicant's treating physician recommended surgery, a second opinion physician disagreed, citing a lack of nerve root compression. The Appeals Board found that the medical evidence was insufficient to determine the necessity of surgery, particularly in light of ACOEM Practice Guidelines which generally recommend against surgery without nerve root compression. Therefore, the Board rescinded the prior award and remanded the case to appoint an independent physician to evaluate the applicant and determine the reasonableness and necessity of the proposed surgery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMarlene CopusNorth Sacramento Elementary School Districtcumulative traumaspinal surgerynerve root impingementcervical stenosisDr. OrisekDr. GregoriusACOEM Practice Guidelines
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 808 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