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. 2017 NY Slip Op 03146
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2017

Barrett v. Magnetic Construction Group Corp.

This case concerns an appeal and cross-appeal from an order denying summary judgment on contractual indemnification and dismissing a third-party complaint. Anthony Barrett, an employee of MJE, Inc., was allegedly injured while working on a renovation project for Magnetic Construction Group Corp., a general contractor. Magnetic, facing a personal injury suit from Barrett, initiated a third-party action against MJE for contractual indemnification. Both Magnetic and MJE sought summary judgment regarding the existence and applicability of a written indemnification contract. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that issues of fact remained as to whether a written contract containing an indemnification provision was in effect between Magnetic and MJE on the date of the accident.

Contractual indemnificationSummary judgmentThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation LawSubcontract agreementRetroactive contractDemolition workPersonal injuryAppellate reviewQuestion of fact
References
5
Case No. 06 Civ. 3994(DC)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2007

BRENTWOOD PAIN & REHABILITATION SERV. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

The case examines whether Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) charges fall under the same discounted fee schedule rules as x-rays for multiple body parts under New York's no-fault auto insurance law. Plaintiffs, MRI service providers, contested the application of Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) Radiology Ground Rule 3 to MRIs, arguing the rule specifically mentions only x-rays. Defendant insurance companies, supported by interpretations from the Department of Insurance (DOI) and WCB, asserted the rule's applicability to MRIs. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to the insurers, deferring to the agencies' "rational" and "reasonable" interpretation. The court concluded that applying the discount rule to MRIs aligns with the No-Fault Law's objectives to control costs and prevent fraud, thus denying the providers' motions.

No-Fault InsuranceMRIX-rayFee ScheduleRadiologyWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of InsuranceAgency DeferenceStatutory InterpretationSummary Judgment
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brentwood Pain & Rehabilitation Services, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance

This opinion addresses whether Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedures are subject to the same fee limitations as X-rays under New York's no-fault auto insurance law. Plaintiffs, a group of MRI service providers ("Providers"), argued that applying x-ray fee schedules to MRIs is improper and violates insurance contracts. Defendants, numerous insurance companies ("Insurers"), along with the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) and Department of Insurance (DOI), contended that the fee limitations for multiple diagnostic x-ray procedures (Ground Rule 3 of the WCB Fee Schedule) should also apply to MRIs. The court, deferring to the interpretations of the WCB and DOI, found their application of Ground Rule 3 to MRIs to be reasonable. Consequently, the court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, denied the Providers' cross-motion for summary judgment, and denied the Providers' motion for class certification as moot.

MRIX-rayNo-Fault InsuranceFee ScheduleWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of InsuranceRegulatory InterpretationSummary JudgmentClass ActionDiagnostic Imaging
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Rabiner

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff) sued Eric Hagerbrant and other defendants, including Metropolitan Radiological Imaging, P.C., to recover over $2,000,000 in alleged fraudulent no-fault insurance payments. Plaintiff asserted claims for common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and sought a declaratory judgment, alleging that Metropolitan was fraudulently incorporated and ineligible for payments. Defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing preemption by New York Insurance Law § 5109, disputing the eligibility of independent contractors for No-Fault benefits, and asserting a statute of limitations defense. The court denied the defendants' motion in its entirety, finding that § 5109 did not eliminate a private right of action, the Insurance Department's position on independent contractors was valid, and the statute of limitations argument was premature.

Fraudulent IncorporationNo-Fault InsuranceUnjust EnrichmentDeclaratory Judgment ActionMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionInsurance Law InterpretationMedical Professional CorporationsIndependent Contractors EligibilityStatute of Limitations Defense
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Inter-County Imaging Centers

Plaintiff Earlston Jones, diagnosed with sickle cell disease, filed an action alleging employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York Human Rights Law against Inter-County Imaging Center (ICIC) and Diane Demers. Jones claims he was denied a promotion and terminated due to his medical condition to avoid insurance costs. Defendants moved to dismiss, challenging ICIC's employer status, the number of employees for ADA applicability, and Demers' liability. The court denied dismissal of the ADA and Human Rights Law claims, pending discovery on employer identity and size. However, the court granted the dismissal of claims against Demers in her individual capacity and also dismissed the Title VII and Section 1981 claims.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentEmployer DefinitionIndividual LiabilityRepresentative CapacityEEOC ChargeSickle Cell Disease
References
23
Case No. ADJ7902535
Regular
Dec 02, 2013

MARIA SANCHEZ vs. TARGET CORPORATION

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied California Imaging Solutions' petition for reconsideration. The Board also dismissed AR Med Management's petition for reconsideration on behalf of Dr. Saghafi and Spectrum Medical Supply because it was not timely filed. Even if timely, the AR Med Management petition would have been denied on its merits. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge in both instances.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAR Med ManagementCalifornia Imaging SolutionsWCJ Reporttimely-filedmeritsSpectrum Medical SupplyDr. SaghafiTarget Corporation
References
0
Case No. ADJ2211265 (AHM 0083473) ADJ4072860 (AHM 0083472)
Regular
May 06, 2011

Darlyn Piper vs. DANKA OFFICE IMAGING, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns applicant Darlyn Piper's appeal of a permanent disability award for injuries sustained while employed by Danka Office Imaging. Applicant argues for total permanent disability, challenging the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Marinow's apportionment and deposition testimony. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the WCJ failed to address the admissibility of Dr. Marinow's deposition testimony. The case is therefore remanded for the WCJ to determine the deposition's admissibility and weight before issuing a new decision.

Darlyn PiperDanka Office ImagingZurich North AmericaLiberty Mutual Insurance Co.permanent disabilitytotal permanent disabilityvocational rehabilitationDr. Marinowapportionmentnon-industrial factors
References
0
Case No. ADJ6502736
Regular
Nov 21, 2011

JUAN BARCENAS vs. THE BEST MASTER ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, New Age Imaging Copy Service

This order imposes a $500.00 sanction against lien claimant New Age Imaging Copy Service for filing a frivolous petition for reconsideration without justification. The Board previously provided notice of its intent to sanction and allowed an opportunity to object, which the lien claimant failed to do. The sanction is for violating Labor Code section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2) regarding frivolous filings. Payment is due within twenty days to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for transmittal to the General Fund.

Frivolous petitionSanctionLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2)Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationNotice of intentionGood causeOpinion and Order Dismissing Petition for ReconsiderationGranting Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ7912859
Regular
Jul 17, 2017

RIGOBERTO RODRIGUEZ vs. TOPLINE STAFFING, YORK INSURANCE

This case involves a lien claimant, Beverly Hills Magnetic Imaging, whose lien was dismissed by the WCJ for failure to appear at a lien conference. The claimant sought reconsideration, arguing the dismissal was erroneous because their lien was stayed under Labor Code section 4615. The WCAB granted reconsideration, finding merit in the claimant's argument and adopting the WCJ's recommendation. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the order dismissing the lien, reinstating the lien claimant's rights.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantLien ConferenceLabor Code Section 4615WCJ ReportGrant ReconsiderationRescind OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03864
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2025

Hasan v. Macerich Co.

In this case, Mohammed Hasan, an injured worker, moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which was granted. The court found the ladder provided was inadequate, leading to Hasan's fall. Defendants Macerich and ABC Imaging, Inc. had their motions to dismiss Hasan's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim denied. Macerich was granted summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against ABC, despite the contract being dated after the accident but effective retroactively. However, Macerich's claim that ABC breached its insurance procurement clause should not have been dismissed, as a certificate of insurance is not conclusive evidence. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order to deny ABC's motion to dismiss Macerich's breach of contract claim and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Labor Law § 240(1) ClaimFall from LadderInadequate LadderContractual IndemnificationBreach of Contract for InsuranceSummary Judgment MotionRetroactive Contract ProvisionSole Proximate Cause DefenseAppellate Division First DepartmentWorkers' Compensation Law
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 116 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