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

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

Yklik Medical Supply, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Yklik Medical Supply, Inc., a medical supply provider, sued Allstate Insurance Company to recover $317 in unpaid medical bills for equipment supplied to its assignor, Tammy Agosto. Yklik moved for summary judgment, asserting proper bill submission and Allstate's failure to timely pay or deny the claim. Allstate argued that the charges exceeded the Workers' Compensation fee schedule and that a partial payment had been made. The court found that Yklik established a prima facie case. The central issue was whether Allstate's fee schedule defense was precluded due to its failure to issue a timely denial within 30 days as mandated by Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. The court ruled that since Allstate waited 56 days to send its denial, it was precluded from raising the fee schedule defense, and therefore, summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.

No-fault insurancesummary judgmenttimely denialfee schedulepreclusion ruleinsurance lawmedical supplybilling practicespersonal injury protectionassignor
References
19
Case No. ADJ9417187
Regular
Jun 05, 2018

CARLOS CAMMON vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE permissibly selfinsured, administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves lien claimants Western Medical Center and Cedars Sinai seeking reconsideration of a decision regarding their unpaid medical bills. The administrative law judge had ruled the bills were subject to independent bill review and deemed satisfied due to a failure to request second bill review. The Appeals Board rescinded the original decision, finding that the threshold issue of whether the defendant was a beneficiary of a PPO contract needed to be determined first. Furthermore, the timeliness of Cedars Sinai's second bill review request remains unresolved, necessitating further proceedings to develop the record on this issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsIndependent Bill Review (IBR)Second Bill ReviewLabor Code Section 4603.2Labor Code Section 4603.3PPO ContractExplanation of Review (EOR)Guardian Ad LitemStipulations with Request for Award
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hason v. Department of Health

The petitioner, a physician, sought review of a determination by the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (ARB) which suspended his medical license. The ARB's decision was based on a prior California Board finding that the petitioner's ability to practice medicine was impaired by mental illness (bipolar affective disorder and narcissistic personality disorder). The court upheld the ARB's finding of professional misconduct, applying collateral estoppel to the California determination. However, the court found the penalty imposed by the ARB—a one-year suspension "and thereafter until such time as [petitioner] can demonstrate his fitness to practice medicine"—was not authorized by Public Health Law § 230-a. Consequently, the court modified the determination by annulling the penalty and remitted the matter to the ARB for the imposition of a statutorily appropriate penalty.

Medical License SuspensionProfessional MisconductPsychiatric ImpairmentMental IllnessBipolar Affective DisorderNarcissistic Personality DisorderCollateral EstoppelArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewPenalty Annulment
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2001

Convenient Medical Care, P.C. v. Medical Business Associates, Inc.

Plaintiff, a professional medical corporation, entered into a billing services contract with defendant, a medical billing service provider, in early 1997. The agreement was terminated by plaintiff in 1998 due to alleged failures by the defendant in timely billing worker's compensation patients and delays in returning billing records. Defendant subsequently moved for summary judgment on its counterclaims for breach of contract and an account stated, which the Supreme Court denied. On appeal, the appellate court modified the lower court's order, reversing the denial of summary judgment for defendant's breach of contract counterclaim and granting summary judgment to the defendant on the issue of liability. The court found plaintiff's arguments and evidence insufficient to defeat the defendant's prima facie showing for summary judgment, but denied summary judgment for an account stated due to discrepancies in claimed amounts.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentMedical Billing ServicesNegligenceCounterclaimsAppellate ReviewContract TerminationWorker's Compensation PatientsEvidentiary ProofMerger Clause
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2012

Williams v. Woodhull Medical & Mental Health Center

Valerie E. Williams filed an action against Woodhull Medical and Mental Health Center and other defendants, alleging discrimination and retaliation under federal and state laws, including Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation, advising to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiff Williams filed objections to the R&R, particularly contesting the recommendation on her Title VII retaliation claim. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, upon de novo review of the contested portions and clear error review of the uncontested, adopted the R&R in its entirety. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding Williams's claims, specifically noting a lack of causal connection for retaliation and insufficient evidence for a hostile work environment or due process violations.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII RetaliationSummary JudgmentProcedural Due ProcessHostile Work EnvironmentMedical Negligence AllegationsPublic Health LawHospital EmploymentMagistrate Judge ReviewFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56
References
80
Case No. ADJ7868976
Regular
May 02, 2018

JAMES BARRIOS vs. BUENA VISTA FOOD PRODUCTS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a judge's order requiring defendants to pay the balance of a lien claimant's bill. The primary dispute concerns the reasonable value of medical services under the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS). Neither the lien claimant's testimony nor the defendant's bill review expert provided substantial evidence to establish the OMFS amount due. Therefore, the case is remanded for further proceedings to develop the record, potentially through an agreed bill reviewer or an appointed independent reviewer.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and Releaselien claimantDr. Paynebill reviewofficial medical fee scheduleOMFSsubstantial evidenceindependent bill review
References
1
Case No. ADJ13656596
Regular
Mar 04, 2025

CARLOS CARTAGENA vs. ORION ORNAMENTAL IRON, INC.; CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Cypress Insurance Company. The petition challenged a Findings and Order from November 26, 2024, which found in favor of a lien claimant, DENTAL TRAUMA CENTER. The defendant argued that the lien claimant failed to timely submit billing and that there was insufficient evidence for the dental injury. Additionally, the defendant sought retrospective utilization review. The WCAB, adopting the WCJ's report, upheld the original decision, citing that the lien claimant's billing was timely served on a co-defendant, that exceptions to the 12-month billing rule apply when a claim is initially denied as non-industrial, and that the defendant failed to present medical evidence to rebut the applicant's medical opinions. The WCAB also denied retrospective utilization review due to the defendant's initial failure to medically investigate the disputed body part.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSTransmission to Appeals BoardAD Rule 9792.9Utilization ReviewURDeferral of Utilization Review
References
0
Case No. ADJ11329981
Regular
Jan 14, 2019

JEFFERY DANHAUSER vs. HOWROYD WRIGHT EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involved a petition for reconsideration and removal by a lien claimant disputing medical bill payments. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration and dismissed the removal petition, affirming the WCJ's findings. The Board reiterated that disputes over medical bill amounts after review must proceed to Independent Bill Review (IBR), not through the Appeals Board. A decision directing a party to IBR is a threshold determination, making reconsideration the appropriate remedy, not removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Independent Bill Review (IBR)Substantive RightLiabilityQuasijurisdictionalThresholdLien Claimant
References
2
Case No. ADJ10168011
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

BELINDA GO vs. SUTTER SOLANO MEDICAL CENTER

This case involved an applicant who self-procured cervical spine surgery after her employer denied authorization, which was upheld by an Independent Medical Review. Despite the denial, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB affirmed that injured workers are entitled to temporary and permanent disability for reasonable, self-procured medical treatment, even if initially unauthorized. The Board found the self-procured surgery was reasonable due to its positive outcome, and the Permanent Qualified Medical Evaluator's findings supported the disability award. The WCAB clarified that utilization review and independent medical review processes do not preclude temporary disability indemnity for self-procured treatment deemed reasonable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUtilization Review (UR)Independent Medical Review (IMR)Self-Procured SurgeryTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent DisabilityPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Medical Treatment DisputesLabor Code Section 4600
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 11,742 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