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
Jul 07, 2004

Claim of Stoudenmyre v. Loretto Rest Nursing Home

Claimant, a personal care aide, sustained a foot injury and her workers' compensation claim was established. Subsequently, an independent medical examination (IME) report was requested to address permanency. Claimant moved to preclude the IME report, arguing it was improperly mailed by Brookside Consultants, Inc., an IME services company, instead of the physician, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 137. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the motion, which the Board affirmed. This Court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that properly registered IME services companies are authorized to perform administrative functions like mailing reports, thereby substantially complying with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, as established in Matter of Clark v Siara Mgt., Inc.

IME reportmailing proceduresWorkers' Compensation Lawadministrative functionspermanency of injuryindependent medical examinationmedical reportsreport submissionappellate reviewBoard affirmation
References
1
Case No. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. Siara Management, Inc.

Claimant, a custodian, sustained two work-related injuries in 2000, and his workers' compensation benefits were approved. In 2003, the employer's workers' compensation carrier requested an independent medical examination (IME) by Charles Totero. Claimant moved to preclude Totero's report, arguing it was improperly mailed by UMC Medical Consultants, EC., an IME services company, instead of Totero himself, in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 137. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied the motion, finding UMC, as Totero's direct employer and a registered IME company, was authorized to perform administrative services like mailing reports under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (e) (1). The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that the submission substantially complied with statutory requirements.

IME Report AdmissibilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 137Procedural ComplianceMedical Report MailingIME Services CompanyAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationIndependent Medical Examiner12 NYCRR 300.2
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coratti v. Jon Josef Hair & Colour Group

The Workers' Compensation Board denied a claimant's motion to preclude a workers’ compensation carrier’s consultant report, which was based solely on a review of medical records, not an independent medical examination (IME). The claimant argued non-compliance with Workers’ Compensation Law § 137 (1) (b), a provision requiring notice if an IME is performed. The Board concluded the statute does not apply to records-review-only reports. An appellate court affirmed, holding that the plain language of § 137 (1) (b) explicitly refers to practitioners who have performed or will perform an IME, thereby excluding those who solely review records. The court emphasized that statutory interpretation must adhere to plain language, leaving policy arguments to the Legislature.

IME reportsrecords reviewWorkers' Compensation Lawstatutory interpretationpreclusion motioncausationoccupational illnessdue processlegislative intent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Estanluards v. American Museum of Natural History

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that precluded reports from physician Douglas Schwartz regarding schedule loss of use. Claimant argued Schwartz was an attending physician, not subject to Independent Medical Examination (IME) regulations, or that his reports substantially complied. The Board affirmed, finding Schwartz's examinations were IMEs as he did not treat the claimant. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting Schwartz's reports lacked proper distribution and certification, failing to meet Workers' Compensation Law § 137 requirements for IME reports. The court also rejected the argument that the statute only applies to employer-initiated IMEs, emphasizing its intent to prevent fraudulent alterations regardless of who initiated the IME.

IME reportsSchedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation Law § 137Attending PhysicianIndependent Medical ExaminationReport PreclusionCertificationStatutory ComplianceAppellate ReviewPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. 534963
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

Matter of Harris v. Department of Envtl. Protection

The claimant, Kevin Harris, a construction worker, filed a workers' compensation claim for work-related injuries to his right shoulder, wrist, and elbow. An orthopedic surgeon, Louis Rose, determined Harris had reached maximum medical improvement and assessed a schedule loss of use (SLU) for these injuries. The self-insured employer challenged Rose's report, arguing his examination was an independent medical examination (IME) and his report failed to comply with statutory and regulatory provisions for IME reports. The Workers' Compensation Board sua sponte agreed that Rose's examination was an IME and precluded his report and testimony due to untimely filing and failure to furnish it to required parties. Consequently, the Board found insufficient evidence for an SLU award. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the IME classification and the preclusion of Rose's report due to non-compliance.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Independent Medical Examination (IME)Medical Report PreclusionTimely FilingComplianceAppellate ReviewOrthopedic InjuryEmployer Self-InsuredRight Shoulder Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pugliese v. Remington Arms, Inc.

The claimant, employed by Remington Arms, Inc. for over three decades, sought workers' compensation benefits, citing severe depression and anxiety stemming from alleged harassment and falsification of attendance records by a supervisor. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied further adjournments for an independent medical examination (IME) report and cross-examination of the treating psychologist, determining the depression to be an occupational disease. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified this, reclassifying it as a compensable accidental injury. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the use of hearsay evidence, the preclusion of their IME report, and the denial of their right to cross-examine the claimant's treating psychologist. The appellate court found sufficient corroboration for the hearsay evidence and upheld the IME report's preclusion due to the carrier's delays. However, the court reversed the denial of cross-examination, stating that the absence of the IME report did not negate the carrier's right, especially given their dispute on causal relationship. Consequently, the case was reversed and remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

DepressionAnxietyWorkplace HarassmentAttendance Records FalsificationIndependent Medical ExaminationIME Report PreclusionRight to Cross-ExaminationHearsay EvidenceCorroborating EvidenceOccupational Disease
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gabak v. New Venture Gear

The claimant sustained a left knee injury, and an independent medical examination (IME) in August 2003 concluded no ongoing work-related disability. Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) suspended benefits and later precluded the IME report due to untimely filing. The WCLJ also granted the employer's request to cross-examine the treating physician and ordered continued payments. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, which the appellate court further affirmed. The appellate court found that the faxed IME report on August 11, 2003, did not substantially comply with filing requirements, and the official report with IME-4 form was received untimely on August 21, 2003. It also ruled that the doctrine of laches did not apply, upholding the order for continued payments.

Independent Medical ExaminationTimely FilingWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence PreclusionLaches DoctrineCausalityContinuing DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 137NYCRR 300.2 Filing Requirements
References
2
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Showing 1-10 of 5,861 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