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

Claim of Shea v. Icelandair

A WCLJ found a claimant had a mild permanent partial disability but voluntarily retired, authorizing medical treatment without lost wage awards. The carrier disputed medical and transportation expenses, leading to a Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 agreement of $17,500 for claimant's expenses, including a $2,200 counsel fee. The WCLJ and Workers’ Compensation Board denied the counsel fee, arguing medical/travel awards are not 'compensation' subject to a lien. The appellate court reversed, broadly interpreting 'compensation' to include medical expenses to ensure representation availability for injured employees. The court remitted the case for the Board to exercise its discretion in reviewing the requested counsel fee.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesMedical ExpensesStatutory InterpretationLienPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary RetirementBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yklik Medical Supply, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Yklik Medical Supply, Inc., a medical supply provider, sued Allstate Insurance Company to recover $317 in unpaid medical bills for equipment supplied to its assignor, Tammy Agosto. Yklik moved for summary judgment, asserting proper bill submission and Allstate's failure to timely pay or deny the claim. Allstate argued that the charges exceeded the Workers' Compensation fee schedule and that a partial payment had been made. The court found that Yklik established a prima facie case. The central issue was whether Allstate's fee schedule defense was precluded due to its failure to issue a timely denial within 30 days as mandated by Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. The court ruled that since Allstate waited 56 days to send its denial, it was precluded from raising the fee schedule defense, and therefore, summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.

No-fault insurancesummary judgmenttimely denialfee schedulepreclusion ruleinsurance lawmedical supplybilling practicespersonal injury protectionassignor
References
19
Case No. ADJ3371067 (VNO 0458070) ADJ4100976 (VNO 0493655)
Regular
Sep 11, 2013

WILLIAM JOHNSON vs. ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRIES dba VALLEY CREST, Permissibly Self-Insured; Adjusted by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board amended a prior award concerning lien claims for medical treatment by two doctors. The Board allowed Dr. Kottler's medical treatment liens based on a prior agreement, but reduced payment for his medical reports to the Official Medical Fee Schedule rates. Conversely, Dr. Singh's lien for medical treatment was rescinded as he failed to meet his burden of proof to establish the reasonableness and necessity of his treatment. The majority opinion found the agreement with Dr. Kottler enforceable, while a dissenting opinion disagreed with its interpretation and favored the fee schedule amounts.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical Treatment LiensOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleBurden of ProofCompromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical ExaminerPsychiatric TreatmentCustomary FeeMedical-Legal Reports
References
0
Case No. ADJ4242850 (GOL 0093209) ADJ1997616 (GOL 0093305)
Regular
Mar 10, 2010

RAMON LEON vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA BARBARA, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns a defendant's appeal regarding an award of specific medical treatment (TENS unit and back brace) and attorney fees for industrial injuries sustained in 2001 and 2002. The defendant argued the treatment was not causally related to the accepted injuries and lacked prior notice for utilization review. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the attorney fees. While affirming the need for medical treatment, the Board reversed the attorney fee award, citing Labor Code section 4607 and the Supreme Court's *Smith* decision, which limits such fees to instances of successfully resisting termination of treatment awards, not challenging denial of specific requests.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings of Fact and Awardindustrial injuryneck and low backpermanent disabilityfurther medical treatmentback braceTENS unitphysician's reportreconsideration
References
1
Case No. ADJ4494642 (SBA 0026287)
Regular
Jun 18, 2009

MARY CONTRERAS vs. DAVID EARTHCRAFT, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this case, the applicant, Mary Contreras, sought attorney fees under Labor Code section 4607 after successfully challenging the denial of specific requested medications by the defendant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior award of attorney fees, holding that section 4607 only applies when an employee successfully resists an employer's attempt to terminate an entire award of medical treatment, not just specific treatment requests. The WCAB relied on the California Supreme Court's decision in *Smith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which clarified this statutory interpretation. Therefore, the applicant was denied attorney fees as the defendant did not attempt to terminate the applicant's ongoing medical treatment award.

Utilization reviewAgreed medical evaluatorsAttorney feesSection 4607Termination of awardMedical treatmentMedication authorizationPermanent disabilityIndustrial injuryWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ2155279 (RIV 0040729)
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

JACK RAMSEY vs. CALIFORNIA PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, Sedgwick CMS, LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) amended a previous award to defer the issue of attorney fees for enforcing an award of Labor Code section 5710 fees. The WCAB affirmed the remainder of the award, including a $100 penalty for unreasonable delay in authorizing medical treatment, finding the 100-day delay in authorizing treatment with the applicant's chosen physician was unreasonable. The Board also affirmed the award of attorney fees under Labor Code section 5814.5 for enforcing the medical treatment award. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the amount of section 5814.5 fees, with a dissenting opinion arguing for further proceedings on the unreasonable delay issue due to insufficient evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGALegion Insurance CompanySedgwick CMSJack RamseyLabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5Labor Code section 5710Medical Provider NetworkMPN
References
2
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. SAC 0296084
Regular
Sep 26, 2007

SHIRLEY MOERSFELDER vs. SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, primarily challenging the denial of additional self-procured medical treatment costs and attorney's fees for enforcing a prior medical treatment award. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case to the trial level pending a California Supreme Court decision on similar attorney's fee issues. The Board deferred ruling on the self-procured medical costs to await the outcome of the Supreme Court's determination on the attorney's fee question.

Self-procured expensesLabor Code section 4607attorney's feesmedical treatment awardpermanent disabilityindustrial injuryinstructional aideSan Juan Unified School DistrictFireman's Fund Insurance Companyrescinded
References
3
Case No. 25 NY3d 907
Regular Panel Decision
2015-XX-XX

Government Employees Insurance v. Avanguard Medical Group, PLLC

This case addresses whether no-fault insurance carriers are obligated to pay facility fees to New York State-accredited office-based surgery (OBS) centers for the use of their premises and support services. The court concluded that neither existing statutes nor regulations mandate such payments. Plaintiffs, a group of GEICO insurers, successfully sought a declaratory judgment that they are not legally required to reimburse Avanguard Medical Group, PLLC, for OBS facility fees, totaling over $1.3 million. The decision affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling, emphasizing that OBS facility fees are not explicitly covered by statute or fee schedules, nor do they fall under reimbursable "professional health services" as per 11 NYCRR 68.5. The court highlighted the distinct regulatory frameworks for OBS centers compared to hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, declining to mandate policy changes best left to the legislature.

No-Fault InsuranceOffice-Based Surgery (OBS)Facility FeesInsurance LawBasic Economic LossFee SchedulesWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of Financial ServicesStatutory InterpretationRegulatory Framework
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 11,223 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