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

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. ADJ1700793 (SAC 0307437) ADJ3714832 (SAC 0307399)
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

JUANITA BRADLEY (Deceased) vs. COUNTY OF PLACER

This case involves a dispute over liability for a medical-legal report cost. The defendant seeks reconsideration of a prior award holding them responsible for Dr. Adelberg's $4,237.50 report. The defendant argues the judge ignored a prior order for an Agreed Medical Evaluation (AME) and that the applicant's attorney improperly proceeded with Dr. Adelberg's exam. The Board granted reconsideration, preliminarily finding it may be inequitable to place the full cost on the defendant, and intends to split the expense between the defendant and applicant's attorney. A dissenting opinion argues the defendant's own correspondence shows an ongoing dispute regarding the AME, supporting the original award of liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical-Legal ReportAgreed Medical EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorJoint Findings and AwardLabor Code Section 4062(a)Stipulation and OrderEquitable PowersLien Claimant
References
1
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. ADJ9011624
Regular
Dec 13, 2019

ELISHA HARDEN vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case concerns whether specific medical reports obtained for a disability retirement claim are admissible in a workers' compensation proceeding. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior ruling, holding these reports are relevant and may be provided to the orthopedic Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) and psychiatric Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Board found the reports relevant to the medical issues, even though they were not obtained through the standard workers' compensation medical-legal evaluation process. Consequently, the applicant's objection to providing these reports to the evaluators was overruled.

RemovalReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical-legal evaluatorsMedical recordsLabor CodeFindings and Orders (F&O)Disability retirementPermanent impairment
References
9
Case No. ADJ519728
Regular
Aug 08, 2011

LOWELL BAPTISTE vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding industrial injury and temporary total disability dating back to 2000. The Board found that the medical opinion relied upon by the workers' compensation judge was not substantial evidence due to staleness, lack of complete records, and insufficient specialization. To ensure a fair resolution, the Board ordered new evaluations by independent orthopedic and psychiatric physicians, who will report on all outstanding medical issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompelling Medical EvaluationsTemporary Total DisabilityIndustrial InjuryOrthopedicsPsychiatrySubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionWCJ
References
2
Case No. ADJ9556841
Regular
Aug 15, 2016

SOFIA RIOS vs. TULARE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ALPHA FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of an award to Sofia Rios. The Board found that the Qualified Medical Evaluator did not engage in ex parte communication by sending a questionnaire and that his reports constituted substantial medical evidence. The employer's arguments that the doctor relied on personal anecdotes and an inaccurate assessment of lift team availability were rejected. The Board affirmed the original award based on the substantial evidence in the medical reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorEx Parte CommunicationSubstantial Medical EvidenceLabor Code Section 5909TollingReasonable Medical ProbabilityInadequate Medical HistoriesCausation Analysis
References
5
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. ADJ10223818
Regular
Sep 14, 2018

Irene Malagon vs. Larsen Supply Company, Inc.; Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Administered by Broadspire

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant claiming injury to her shoulders, neck, and back. The defendant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding of industrial causation, arguing the medical evidence was insufficient. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's treating physician's report to be substantial evidence despite some historical inconsistencies. The Board also found the Qualified Medical Evaluator's reports problematic, particularly regarding causation for wrist and hand injuries due to contradictory opinions and insufficient analysis. A dissenting commissioner believed both medical reports had significant flaws, necessitating further evaluation.

AOE/COEProduction workerCumulative injuryMedical opinionSubstantial evidenceTreating physicianQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)CausationReconsiderationCredibility determination
References
0
Case No. ADJ10474797
Regular
Nov 13, 2017

Hernan Fuentes vs. STAFFMARK INVESTMENT, LLC, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, CANNON COCHRAN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior Findings and Order, and returned the case for further medical record development. The Board found the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) report lacked substantial evidence due to the physician's apparent misunderstanding of workers' compensation principles and conflicting dates of maximum medical improvement. The applicant's primary treating physician's reports were also insufficient as they did not address a significant MRI finding of a re-tear. Therefore, a new medical evaluation from an Agreed Medical Examiner or a WCJ-selected physician is required to determine the applicant's entitlement to temporary disability indemnity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardHernan FuentesStaffmark Investment LLCACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANYCannon CochranADJ10474797San BernardinoPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityPrimary Treating Physician
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 11,735 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