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. 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

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

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. ADJ873701 (ANA 0299104) ADJ1741214 (ANA 0299113)
Regular
Sep 04, 2018

SHELLEE SMITH vs. SMITH'S FOOD AND DRUG, a subsidiary of the Kroger Company, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves an untimely denial of a request for zolpidem by the defendant employer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration because the trial judge's decision on medical necessity lacked substantial evidence due to a missing medical report. The matter is returned to the trial level to determine the reasonableness and necessity of the zolpidem treatment based on the correct evidence. The WCAB clarified that even with an untimely denial, the applicant must still prove the medical necessity of the requested treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardZolpidemUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewRequest for AuthorizationUntimely DenialMedical NecessityBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. ADJ6444600
Regular
Jan 22, 2020

PAUL AGUILAR vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This case involved a dispute over the timeliness of a utilization review (UR) denial for requested medical treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, finding the original WCJ erred by concluding the UR denial was untimely solely due to lack of telephone/fax communication. While the WCAB agreed the UR denial was untimely because it wasn't communicated to the physician as required by law, it found the record incomplete regarding the medical necessity of the treatment. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the order authorizing treatment and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine medical necessity.

Utilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationTimelinessCommunicationProspective TreatmentLabor Code Section 4610Administrative Director RuleBodam v. San Bernardino CountyMedical NecessitySubstantial Evidence
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ABC Medical Management, Inc. v. GEICO General Insurance

The case addresses whether a plaintiff-assignee medical equipment supplier can recover no-fault first-party benefits when a chiropractor, rather than a physician, issued the prescription. Defendant GEICO General Insurance Company moved for summary judgment, arguing that Education Law § 6551 prohibits chiropractors from prescribing such items. The court denied GEICO's motion, ruling that chiropractors are permitted to prescribe TENS units, thermophore devices, and similar medical supplies, as these do not constitute 'drugs or medicines' under the Education Law. Furthermore, the court found that GEICO failed to properly present its medical necessity defense and that the contested issues should be determined by a trier of fact.

No-Fault BenefitsChiropractic PrescriptionMedical EquipmentEducation Law § 6551Summary JudgmentMedical NecessityTENS UnitThermophoreCervical CollarLumbar Support
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2013

Matter of Madigan v. ARR ELS

In 1994, the claimant sustained a low back injury during employment as a machinist, leading to workers' compensation benefits. Liability for the case was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2003. Due to poor surgical outcomes, the claimant has been on pain medication, including oxycontin, since at least 2007, with doses escalating. A consultant for the Special Fund questioned the necessity of the increased medication, prompting a hearing. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ruled that the pain medications should continue, with the Special Fund covering the costs, until new Board guidelines or physician recommendations advised otherwise. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, citing that their Medical Treatment Guidelines for chronic pain were still in draft form at the time. The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the guidelines were not yet in effect at the time of the Board's ruling and that the Board's interim guidance was rational.

Workers' CompensationPain ManagementOpioid PrescriptionsMedical Treatment GuidelinesSpecial FundReopened CasesLumbar InjuryOxycontinAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ1718435 (MON 0341690) ADJ2131482 (MON 0340861)
Regular
May 10, 2017

JEROME MITCHELL vs. COMMUTER EXPRESS, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case involves a lien claimant, RS Medical, seeking reconsideration after its $6,800.28 lien for medical treatment was disallowed by the WCJ. The WCJ found RS Medical failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary for the admitted industrial injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ erred by focusing solely on neck treatment when evidence indicated prescriptions were for multiple body parts, including admitted injuries. The matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to re-evaluate the medical evidence and determine the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment.

Lien ClaimReconsiderationWCJUtilization ReviewTENS deviceMedical TreatmentBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceReasonableness and NecessityIndustrial Injury
References
5
Case No. WCB No. 7990 5338
Regular Panel Decision

In the Matter of Maureen Kigin v. State of New York Workers' Compensation Board

Justice Rivera's dissenting opinion argues that the Workers’ Compensation Board overstepped its authority by implementing regulations that demand preapproval for medical services not listed in its guidelines, thereby presuming such unlisted treatments are not medically necessary. This approach, according to the dissent, obstructs prompt medical care, contradicts the Workers’ Compensation Law's pro-employee stance, and deviates from the legislative intent to ease access to diagnostic and treatment measures. The opinion contends that while the Board can create a pre-authorized list, it cannot use this power to impose a burden on claimants like Kigin to continually prove the medical necessity of treatments not on that list, especially when disputes historically allowed for post-treatment resolution.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical Treatment GuidelinesPre-authorization RegulationsVariance SchemeMedical NecessityBoard AuthorityAdministrative RegulationsClaimant Burden of ProofStatutory InterpretationLegislative Intent
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 9,350 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