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. ADJ3292672
Regular
Nov 08, 2012

SUSAN VIRDIER vs. CONCENTRA MANAGED CARE, ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (in liquidation), CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Travelers Indemnity Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration regarding its liability for applicant Susan Verdier's medical treatment. Travelers argued it should not be responsible for medical care in ADJ4661775, as it did not insure the employer at the time of the specific left wrist injury in ADJ3701452, and the cumulative trauma injury in ADJ4661775 involved different body parts. The Board denied the petition, holding that medical treatment expenses are not apportionable and that Travelers' coverage for the cumulative trauma period constitutes "other insurance" when the primary insurer is insolvent. The Board found no medical evidence distinguishing the need for treatment between the upper extremities and the wrist, thus upholding the finding that Travelers is available coverage for the award.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardConcentra Managed CareAtlantic Mutual Insurance CompanyCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationTravelers Indemnity Insurance CompanyreconsiderationFindings and Ordersother coveragemedical treatmentcumulative trauma
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraser v. Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc.

In this medical malpractice action, the defendant The Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc. appealed an order that granted the plaintiff’s motion to strike its workers’ compensation coverage defense. Concurrently, the plaintiff cross-appealed the dismissal of the complaint against defendant S. Fong. The appellate court affirmed the decision to strike the workers’ compensation defense for The Brunswick Hospital Medical Center, Inc., citing its participation and lack of appeal in the prior Workers’ Compensation Board hearing. However, the dismissal of the complaint against S. Fong was reversed, as S. Fong was not present at the Board hearing, thus preclusion did not apply, and a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the injury was employment-related. The court also rejected S. Fong's argument regarding the absence of a doctor-patient relationship.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseSpecial EmployeeCoemployeePreclusive EffectTriable Issue of FactDoctor-Patient RelationshipAppellate ReviewHospital Liability
References
7
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. 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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Evevsky v. Liberty Mutual Group

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's unauthorized medical treatment. The claimant, who sustained neck and shoulder injuries in 1993, had her case reopened in 2001 after the employer's carrier objected to her request for authorized massage therapy. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that the treatment was not authorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-b, as the massage therapist was not Board-authorized nor supervised by an authorized physician. The appellate court reviewed the Board's decision, affirming that there was no legal basis to overturn the finding. The court also considered and dismissed the claimant's constitutional arguments as being without merit.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentMassage TherapyAuthorizationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPhysician SupervisionConstitutionalityPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2001

Fonville v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which, upon reargument, adhered to a prior decision to dismiss a medical malpractice claim against the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). The claim alleged that HHC's emergency medical services (EMS) improperly treated the decedent. The appellate court reversed the order, reinstating the claim concerning improper treatment by EMS workers. The court reasoned that although municipalities generally have immunity for governmental functions, once an affirmative action is voluntarily undertaken, it must be performed with due care. Consequently, the claim of improper treatment was reinstated, while allegations of nonfeasance remained dismissed.

Medical MalpracticeMunicipal ImmunitySpecial RelationshipVoluntary UndertakingDue CareCPLR 3211(a)(7)Motion to DismissClaim ReinstatementAppellate ReviewEMS Negligence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 9,890 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