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

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. ADJ9772365 (MF) ADJ10082338
Regular
Dec 06, 2016

Leonel Hidalgo vs. Hilbert Property Management, Technology Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, treating it instead as a Petition for Removal. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the Joint Findings of Fact, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This action was based on the Medical Director applying the incorrect standard when determining that an orthopedic QME panel was in the applicant's medical interest. The WCAB found that the Medical Director should have first determined if the applicant's chosen chiropractic specialty was medically or otherwise inappropriate, as required by Administrative Director Rule 31.5(a)(10).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelspecialty determinationorthopedicschiropracticMedical DirectorAdministrative Director RuleLabor CodePetition for Reconsideration
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lutheran Medical Center v. Hereford Insurance

Maher Kiswani, a livery car driver, was injured in an automobile accident and received medical treatment from Lutheran Medical Center. Lutheran, as Kiswani's assignee, sought payment from Hereford Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, which refused to pay. After an initial arbitration where the Workers' Compensation Board determined Kiswani was not injured in the course of employment (without Hereford's notice), a second arbitration awarded Lutheran no-fault benefits. The Supreme Court, Kings County, vacated this arbitration award, ruling that Hereford should have been notified of the Workers' Compensation Board hearing. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that a party not afforded an opportunity to participate in a Board hearing is not bound by its determination.

Arbitration AwardNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BoardDue ProcessNotice RequirementsVacated Arbitration AwardAppellate ReviewLivery Car DriverAutomobile AccidentMedical Benefits
References
3
Case No. ADJ3033041 (SBR 0286165)
Regular
Dec 09, 2014

MARIO MORALES, SR. vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition to appeal an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination. The petition was dismissed because it failed to comply with WCAB rules regarding caption information, service of process, verification, and specificity of grounds. Specifically, the applicant did not properly identify the defendant, failed to serve all parties or the IMR Unit, and did not verify the petition or provide detailed grounds for appeal. The WCAB emphasized that appeals must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including filing at the correct venue and allowing for a WCJ decision before appealing to the Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewUtilization ReviewPetition to ReopenStipulated AwardElectronic Adjudication Management SystemAdministrative DirectorWCAB Rules of Practice and ProcedureCalifornia Code of RegulationsLabor Code
References
0
Case No. ADJ736188 (GOL 0099658)
Regular
Sep 22, 2017

Deanna Power vs. St. John's Regional Medical Center, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns Deanna Power's claim for continued medical treatment, specifically prescription medications Xyrem and Lunesta, for a previous industrial injury. The employer denied authorization for these medications through Utilization Review (UR), and the applicant's subsequent Independent Medical Review (IMR) application was deemed untimely. The trial judge initially ordered continued treatment and directed the Administrative Director to process the IMR appeal, finding it timely. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to order treatment when a timely UR decision was issued and the applicant's sole recourse was the IMR process. The matter was returned to the trial level for a determination solely on the timeliness of the IMR appeal, not the medical necessity of the medications.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardXyremLunestaIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewURprescription medications
References
3
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. ADJ1060696
Regular
Jan 14, 2016

MARIA URIBE RAMOS vs. PATTERSON FROZEN FOODS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INDEMNITY

This case involves an applicant's appeal of Independent Medical Review (IMR) determinations regarding prescription medication refills for Flexeril and Norco. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the appeal for Flexeril, finding the initial IMR determination was issued in excess of the Administrative Director's powers due to an incomplete medical record. The WCAB affirmed the IMR determination for Norco, agreeing that the record was complete for that medication. A dissenting opinion argued that both IMR determinations for Flexeril and Norco, and an additional IMR determination for clonidine, were flawed and should have been remanded for further review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610.6(h)Plainly Erroneous Finding of FactIncomplete Medical RecordExcess of PowersRemandUtilization ReviewMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleCompromise and Release
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ABC Medical Management, Inc. v. GEICO General Insurance

The case addresses whether a plaintiff-assignee medical equipment supplier can recover no-fault first-party benefits when a chiropractor, rather than a physician, issued the prescription. Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company moved for summary judgment, arguing that Education Law § 6551 prohibits chiropractors from prescribing such items. The court denied GEICO's motion, ruling that chiropractors are permitted to prescribe TENS units, thermophore devices, and similar medical supplies, as these do not constitute 'drugs or medicines' under the Education Law. Furthermore, the court found that GEICO failed to properly present its medical necessity defense and that the contested issues should be determined by a trier of fact.

No-Fault BenefitsChiropractic PrescriptionMedical EquipmentEducation Law § 6551Summary JudgmentMedical NecessityTENS UnitThermophoreCervical CollarLumbar Support
References
29
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center

Eulalia Perez was admitted to Brookdale University Hospital on November 16, 2010, and treated for various medical conditions before being discharged on December 7. She died two days later. Her family, Ivan and Irma Perez, sued Brookdale and other defendants, alleging a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and state-law claims of wrongful death and negligence. The court granted Brookdale's motion for summary judgment on the EMTALA claim, determining that the hospital fulfilled its EMTALA duties once Mrs. Perez was stabilized, and any subsequent issues were outside the statute's scope. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, leading to the dismissal of all claims against all parties.

EMTALAEmergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor ActMedical MalpracticeNegligenceWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentSupplemental JurisdictionPatient DumpingHospital DischargeFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 15,724 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