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

NYSA-ILA Medical & Clinical Services Fund Ex Rel. Capo v. Catucci

The NYSA-ILA Medical & Clinical Services Fund, an employee medical services fund, sued Sabato Catucci and his three sons for allegedly withholding payments from Saleo Trucking Corporation to the fund. This action followed a prior judgment against the corporation for delinquent contributions. The plaintiff sought to hold the defendants personally liable under alter ego, breach of ERISA fiduciary duty, and embezzlement theories. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the breach of ERISA fiduciary duty claim against Sabato Catucci, finding him to be a fiduciary who misused plan assets. However, claims against his sons were dismissed due to lack of sufficient control over the corporation. The alter ego claim against Sabato Catucci will proceed to trial, and the embezzlement claim was dismissed for not supporting a private civil cause of action.

ERISA Fiduciary DutyAlter Ego LiabilityCorporate Veil PiercingDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentEmployee Benefit PlanMultiemployer FundSelf-DealingCorporate ControlLabor Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Arena v. Delux Transportation Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Joseph Arena sued Delux Transportation Services, Inc. and related entities, claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York State Labor Law (NYLL), New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), and wrongful conversion. Arena argued he was an employee entitled to labor law protections, while defendants asserted he was an independent contractor. The Court applied the "economic reality test" under both FLSA and New York law, considering factors like control over work, opportunity for profit/loss, skill, permanence of relationship, and integral nature of the work. The Court found that Arena drove at his convenience, set his own schedule, retained all fares, and was not significantly controlled or supervised by the defendants. Consequently, the Court determined there was no employer-employee relationship under either FLSA or New York law, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing all claims.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorEconomic Reality TestTaxicab DriverWage ClaimsOvertime PayMinimum Wage
References
32
Case No. ADJ162857 (LAO 0788261)
Regular
Jul 13, 2015

SANDRA GUNN vs. SAN DIEGO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES (IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES), YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The WCAB denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an order for medical transportation services. The defendant argued no physician requested authorization, the order was vague, and transportation wasn't reasonable. The Board found the physician's reports clearly requested authorization, the order was sufficiently specific, and transportation was necessary for the applicant's industrial injuries. Furthermore, the Board indicated potential sanctions against the defendant and its attorney for misrepresentation, delay, and frivolous arguments.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryLive-in CaregiverPulmonary SystemOrthopaedic InjuriesMedical Transportation ServicesLabor Code Section 4600Treating Physician
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The plaintiff, Queens Blvd. Medical, P.C., sought $950 in first-party no-fault benefits for biofeedback medical services provided to its assignor for lower back and chronic pain syndrome. The central issue at trial was the medical necessity of these services under Insurance Law § 5102 (a) (1). The plaintiff established a prima facie case with expert testimony from a board-certified neurologist affirming the medical appropriateness of biofeedback. The defendant insurance company failed to present admissible evidence to disprove medical necessity, as its expert was deemed incompetent to testify on biofeedback for back pain. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict, awarding judgment for $950 along with statutory costs, interest, and attorney's fees.

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityBiofeedback treatmentExpert testimonyDirected verdictInsurance lawChronic pain syndromeBack injuryCPT codesBurden of proof
References
9
Case No. ANA 0372945 ANA 0380241
Regular
May 06, 2008

OLGA A. SALDAÑA vs. 3M ESPE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior decision, finding that interpreter services are reimbursable under Labor Code section 4600 when recommended or required by a treating physician. The Board determined that these services are considered part of the overall medical treatment benefit, analogous to transportation costs. Therefore, the lien claimant, Certified Interpreters, is entitled to payment for services rendered at both medical-legal evaluations and applicant's medical treatment appointments.

Labor Code section 4600interpreter servicesmedical-legal expensesmedical treatmentCertified InterpretersWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardadministrative law judgereconsiderationAD Rule 9795.3case law
References
7
Case No. ADJ2536829 (SDO 0332809)
Regular
Mar 21, 2018

MARGO RABENAU vs. SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL COUNTIES DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED; Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by ESIS

This case concerns the denial of a defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the continuation of non-medical transportation services for the applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the judge's award, holding that the defendant improperly terminated these services. The Board ruled that the defendant must continue providing transportation until it demonstrates a change in the applicant's condition or circumstances, relying on precedent that prohibits unilateral termination of approved medical treatment. The defendant's petition was also noted for procedural deficiencies, including lack of verification.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Diego Imperial Counties Developmental ServicesPermissibly Self-InsuredESISFindings and AwardNon-medical transportationMedical treatmentChange in applicant's conditionPatterson v. The Oaks FarmUnilaterally terminate
References
5
Case No. 02 Civ. 7659(SAS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100 v. NYC Transit Auth.

This case involves a dispute between several labor unions and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and its subsidiary regarding the legality of NYCTA's sick leave policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unions challenged the policy's medical inquiry requirements, arguing they violated ADA provisions against inquiries that may reveal a disability. The NYCTA justified its policy by citing the need to curb sick leave abuse and ensure workplace and public safety. The court applied the framework established in Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services. It found that curbing sick leave abuse was a legitimate business necessity but only justified the policy for employees on a narrowly-defined "sick leave control list." The court also determined that ensuring safety was a vital business necessity, justifying the policy for safety-sensitive employees, specifically bus operators, but required further factual development for other employee groups. Ultimately, the court issued a declaratory judgment, clarifying the permissible scope of the policy's medical inquiries and rejecting the Authority's defenses of unclean hands and laches.

ADA ComplianceSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiryEmployment DiscriminationBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyPublic SafetyLabor Union LitigationCollective BargainingBus Operator
References
16
Case No. AHM 0097303
Regular
Mar 14, 2009

BOB PAREDES vs. TANDEM, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to amend a prior order, but ultimately affirmed the denial of UTrans, LLC's lien claim for transportation services. UTrans failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating the medical necessity of the transportation or that the services were reasonably required to cure or relieve the applicant's injury. The WCAB found that the documentation provided lacked foundational support and did not establish that applicant was transported on the dates billed.

UTransLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 4600Medical NecessityTransportation ServicesPreponderance of the EvidenceCompromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical ExaminerMedical Treatment Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transport Workers Union of America, Local 252, AFL-CIO v. Veolia Transportation Services, Inc.

The Petitioner, Transport Workers Union of America, Local 252, AFL-CIO, initiated an action against the Respondent, Veolia Transportation Services, Inc., d/b/a Nassau Inter-County Express Bus, to compel arbitration. The core dispute revolved around whether the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the parties allowed for multiple grievances to be heard during a single arbitration session. The Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment to compel arbitration, while the Respondent filed a cross-motion opposing it. The Court found that a valid and broad arbitration agreement existed within the CBA, encompassing disputes concerning the interpretation and application of its provisions. Consequently, the Court granted the Petitioner's motion for summary judgment and denied the Respondent's cross-motion, instructing the parties to arbitrate the dispute.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActArbitrabilityDispute ResolutionUnionEmployer
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 14,543 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