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. ADJ18498378
Regular
Oct 27, 2025

MARIA VENEGAS vs. MARATHON PETROLEUM COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

Lien claimant, Premier Psychological Services, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order from July 30, 2025, which denied its lien for medical-legal and medical treatment expenses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition for reconsideration, rescinded the original F&O, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found that the medical-legal expenses were incurred for a contested claim and that the medical report from Dr. Mark Michaels constituted substantial medical evidence for an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, despite some curable deficiencies regarding interpreter information. The WCAB ordered further consideration of the medical treatment expenses and a potential updated utilization review.

Premier Psychological ServicesAdjudication Number ADJ18498378Opinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationLien ClaimantPrimary Treating Physician (PTP)Dr. Mark MichaelsInjury Arising Out of and In the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)PsycheMedical-Legal Report
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leone v. Sheriff's Department

This case addresses whether a municipality, which has paid both salary and medical treatment costs to a police officer injured in the line of duty under General Municipal Law § 207-c, is entitled to reimbursement for medical treatment expenses from a schedule award received by the employee under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The employer, a self-insured municipality, deducted both wages and medical expenses from the claimant's schedule award. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a decision holding that the employer was not entitled to credit for medical payments from the schedule loss award. The court affirmed this decision, holding that medical expense payments made by a self-insured employer must be deemed Workers’ Compensation Law § 13 payments, for which the employer is not entitled to reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 30 (3). The court emphasized a liberal and harmonious interpretation of the relevant statutes to avoid disadvantaging police officers and firefighters.

Workers' CompensationGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficersFirefightersMedical ExpensesSchedule AwardReimbursementSelf-Insured EmployerStatutory InterpretationLine of Duty Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ6774605
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

Tammy Tran vs. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRY, ZURICH LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, which limited reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment. The Board found that the ALJ erred by only allowing reimbursement for treatment from the claim date until the denial date. Citing *McCoy v. Industrial Accident Commission*, the Board determined that the employer is liable for all reasonably necessary self-procured medical expenses incurred after the employer denied the claim, as this denial effectively refused to provide treatment. Consequently, the Board rescinded the ALJ's award and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the reasonableness of all self-procured medical expenses.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 4600McCoy v. Industrial Accident CommissionDenial of ClaimReimbursementIndustrial InjuryReasonably Necessary Treatment
References
5
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. ADJ10084576
Regular
Oct 06, 2016

ROSE SMITH vs. MEGGITT SENSING SYSTEMS PLC, THE HARTFORD

This case involves Rose Smith's workers' compensation claim where the defendant, Meggit Sensing Systems and its insurer, The Hartford, seek reconsideration of an order allowing Smith to obtain medical treatment outside their Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's finding that the defendant's failure to authorize a requested third medical opinion constituted a denial of care. This denial entitled the applicant to seek treatment outside the MPN at the defendant's expense. The defendant argued the request was procedurally deficient and not a request for treatment, but the Board found the failure to respond to the RFA for a third opinion, in context, was a failure to provide reasonable medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Request for Authorization (RFA)Petition for ReconsiderationDenial of Medical TreatmentThird Medical OpinionUtilization Review (UR)Primary Treating PhysicianCumulative TraumaLoss of Control
References
3
Case No. ADJ4702564 (RDG 0094598) ADJ6944237
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

CLAUDETTE GILBERT vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, INHOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, YORK RISK SERVICES, ADVENTIST HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over reimbursement for medical expenses following two lumbar spine injuries sustained by the applicant. The Department of Social Services (IHSS) sought reimbursement from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for treatment costs after the applicant's 2008 injury, arguing the 1999 injury contributed to the need for care. However, the Appeals Board found Dr. Sommer's medical opinions lacked substantiality due to inconsistent apportionment and a failure to adequately explain the causal link between the 1999 injury and the 2008 treatment needs. Consequently, IHSS failed to meet its burden of proof, and their claims for reimbursement and shared medical expenses were denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIn-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)Legally UninsuredYORK RISK SERVICESADVENTIST HEALTH OF CALIFORNIALIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANYlumbar spine injuryapportionmentmedical opinions
References
0
Case No. ADJ9522703
Regular
Jul 04, 2018

MAYRA MENDOZA vs. SAFEWAY, INC., ALBERTSONS HOLDINGS

This case concerns whether applicant's medical mileage and self-procured medical expenses were included in a prior Compromise and Release (C&R) agreement. The applicant sought reconsideration of the WCJ's finding that these expenses were resolved by the C&R. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding that the plain language of the C&R explicitly included medical mileage and self-procured medical treatment as resolved issues within the settlement amount. Therefore, the applicant's subsequent claims for these expenses were denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseWCJLabor Code section 5813medical mileageout-of-pocket medical expensesself-procured medical treatmentindustrial injurychecker/stocker
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
Showing 1-10 of 9,512 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