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 Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

A claimant sustained a work-related back injury and sought continued medical treatment, which was initially authorized. Disputes over authorization led the claimant to retain an attorney. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge authorized continued medical treatment but denied counsel fees, stating no "money passing" occurred. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board unconstitutionally applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, misinterpreted the statute regarding fee payment from medical benefits, and abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees must be paid from "compensation," defined as a money allowance, and medical benefits are not considered "compensation" for this purpose, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

Mitchell v. SUNY Upstate Medical University

Plaintiff Robbie Mitchell sued SUNY Upstate Medical Center for alleged Title VII violations, including race discrimination and retaliation, after experiencing a series of adverse employment actions. These actions included reassignment, disciplinary notices (NODs), a mandatory medical examination, a formal counseling memorandum, a verbal dispute, and eventual termination. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for most claims and that their actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The court granted summary judgment in favor of SUNY Upstate Medical Center, concluding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of discrimination or that retaliation was the but-for cause of the challenged employment actions, and consequently, the case was closed.

Title VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkWorkplace ConductDisciplinary ActionPaid Administrative Leave
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2012

Douyon v. NY Medical Health Care, P.C.

Plaintiff Gabrielle Douyon sued Seymour Schneider, N.Y. Medical Health Care, P.C., Faraidoon Daniel Golyan, M.D., and Kourosh Golyan, alleging unfair debt collection practices under the FDCPA and NY GBL § 349, along with intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The lawsuit stemmed from attempts to collect an alleged medical debt following Douyon's emergency heart surgery performed by Dr. Golyan. Both parties sought summary judgment. The court granted Plaintiff partial summary judgment on FDCPA violations related to statutory disclosures and a threatening voicemail. However, many other FDCPA and NY GBL claims were denied due to factual disputes, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed for lack of medical evidence, with negligence claims partially allowed to proceed on the basis of fear for physical safety.

Fair Debt Collections Practices ActNew York General Business Law § 349Debt CollectionSummary JudgmentEmotional DistressNegligenceAgency RelationshipVicarious LiabilityFreelance Debt CollectorUnfair and Deceptive Practices
References
105
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. 23
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company v. Allied Capital Corporation

This case addresses whether an arbitration panel exceeded its authority by reconsidering a "Partial Final Award" in an insurance dispute. The underlying dispute involved Ciena Capital LLC and Allied Capital Corporation seeking coverage from American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) after settling a federal qui tam action. Initially, the arbitration panel issued a partial award, which was later reconsidered and corrected to grant both indemnification and defense costs. AISLIC challenged this reconsideration, arguing the panel was functus officio. The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division ruling, holding that the initial "Partial Final Award" was not truly final because the parties had not mutually agreed to its finality. Consequently, the arbitration panel was deemed to have acted within its authority by reconsidering its initial determination, and the petition to vacate the corrected award was denied.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardReconsiderationArbitrator AuthorityInsurance CoverageIndemnificationDefense CostsQui Tam ActionNew York Court of Appeals
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beth Israel Medical Center v. 1199/S.E.I.U. United Healthcare Workers East

Beth Israel Medical Center (BIMC) petitioned to vacate an arbitration award concerning a labor dispute over wage differentials for registered nurses on flex-time schedules at its Kings Highway Division. Local 1199, the nurses' union, moved to confirm the award. The dispute arose when BIMC discontinued pro-rata wage differentials for day shift nurses, arguing a 2002 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) adopted a different plan. The arbitrator found for Local 1199, concluding the 2002 MOA did not alter the longstanding practice established in prior MOAs. BIMC argued the arbitrator exceeded his power and violated public policy; however, the court denied BIMC's petition and granted Local 1199's motion, affirming the arbitrator's decision that drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardWage DifferentialsCollective Bargaining AgreementFlex-Time ScheduleRegistered NursesNew YorkFederal CourtLMRAContract Interpretation
References
14
Case No. ADJ10912079
Regular
Aug 21, 2018

BENEDICT LOZADA vs. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, AIG

This case involves a dispute over the appropriate specialty for a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The applicant requested a chiropractic QME, while the defendant argued it was inappropriate for a hand injury and sought a replacement panel. The WCJ initially found chiropractic to be appropriate, but the Appeals Board granted removal. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order and returned the matter to the trial level, emphasizing that the Medical Director must first rule on the specialty dispute, and any appeal of that decision can then proceed.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panel specialtychiropractichand injuryMedical Directoradministrative remediesreplacement panelsubstantial evidenceFindings Award and Order
References
6
Case No. ADJ10591990
Regular
Aug 07, 2018

Sammy Mendoza vs. City of Tracy

This case concerns a dispute over the appropriate specialty for a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) in a workers' compensation claim. The WCJ found the defendant failed to prove Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation was medically inappropriate for the applicant's knee injury. However, the Appeals Board granted removal, finding the WCJ's decision lacked substantial evidence. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order, returning the case for further proceedings to properly develop the evidentiary record regarding the specialty dispute.

RemovalPetition for RemovalFindings of Fact and OrdersQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelPhysical Medicine and RehabilitationOccupational MedicineMedical UnitSpecialty disputeMedical Director
References
6
Case No. ADJ11446545
Regular
Dec 03, 2019

ROSA LOPEZ RODRIGUEZ vs. UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES SUPPLY COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case concerns a dispute over the appropriate medical specialty for a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The applicant, Rosa Lopez Rodriguez, initially requested a chiropractic QME panel, which was issued first. The defendant objected, arguing that chiropractic was inappropriate due to the applicant's prior surgery and lack of full recovery. The Medical Unit then invalidated the chiropractic panel and issued an orthopedic surgery panel. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning the WCJ's decision. The Board held that the party who first requests a QME panel has the right to designate the specialty and that the defendant failed to provide sufficient grounds to invalidate the chiropractic panel. Therefore, the Board amended the findings to sustain the applicant's objection and affirm chiropractic as the appropriate panel specialty.

AD Rule 31.5(a)(10)AD Rule 31.5(a)(9)AD Rule 31.1(b)Labor Code section 4062Labor Code section 4062.2Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)QME panel specialtyPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Unit determination
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Belmonte v. Snashall

The case involves licensed physicians challenging the Workers' Compensation Board's interpretation of "board certified" concerning independent medical examinations (IMEs) under Workers' Compensation Law § 137 (3) (a). The Board had defined "board certified" as certification by a specialty board recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) or the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), which the petitioners disputed. The Supreme Court initially sided with the petitioners, invalidating the Board's interpretation and regulations, and annulling denials of authorization. On appeal, the court held that the Board's interpretation was not owed deference as it was a matter of pure statutory interpretation. The appellate court concluded that the Legislature intended "board certified" to mean certification by the Workers' Compensation Board itself, rather than by external medical specialty boards, and therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Independent Medical ExaminationsWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationBoard CertificationAdministrative Agency DeferenceMedical Specialty BoardsLegislative IntentPhysiciansPodiatristsAppellate Review
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 11,133 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