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

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. Edson

The plaintiffs appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Rockland County. The first order, dated January 5, 2006, granted summary judgment to defendants Page Edson and the County of Rockland, dismissing the complaint against them regarding claims of legal and medical malpractice. The second order, dated January 23, 2006, granted summary judgment to defendant Elizabeth O’Connor, dismissing the complaint against her for legal malpractice. The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding that Edson and the County were immune from liability under Social Services Law § 419 for reporting suspected child abuse and removing a child, and that O’Connor was not negligent in her legal services.

Legal MalpracticeMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentChild Abuse ReportingSocial Services LawImmunityMandated ReportersAppellate ReviewGood FaithNegligence
References
6
Case No. ADJ8580497
Regular
Oct 24, 2014

Anthony Broussard, Chenequa Phelps, William Ortiz vs. Neighborhood House Association; Zenith Insurance Company, Grossmont Family Medical Group; Zenith Insurance Company, Steigerwald Dougherty, Inc.; Zenith Insurance Company

In three consolidated workers' compensation cases, the Appeals Board rescinded its prior consolidation order and imposed $1,000 in sanctions against lien claimant ARS Legal and its representative. The Board found that ARS Legal improperly attempted to compel claims adjusters' appearances via notice, misinterpreting Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). The Board rejected ARS Legal's arguments regarding procedural ignorance and good faith, affirming that the representative's duty included understanding proper legal procedures.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardZenith Insurance CompanyARS LegalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Quashing Notice to AppearClaims AdjusterSubpoenaWCJLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561
References
9
Case No. ADJ9101616
Regular
Feb 20, 2018

MARIA MENCITAR vs. JESUS EDGARDO PACHECO, STAR INSURANCE CO., Administered by MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal and rescinded a WCJ's order that dismissed a medical-legal provider's petition for determination of non-IBR medical-legal dispute for lack of jurisdiction. The WCAB found the WCJ erred by not holding a hearing, as no procedural rule required the provider to file a lien first. This decision allows the provider to pursue its claim for medical-legal expenses at the trial level.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Determination of Non-IBR Medical-Legal DisputeWCJMinute OrderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderMedical-Legal ExpensesLien Claimant
References
12
Case No. ADJ1700793 (SAC 0307437) ADJ3714832 (SAC 0307399)
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

JUANITA BRADLEY (Deceased) vs. COUNTY OF PLACER

This case involves a dispute over liability for a medical-legal report cost. The defendant seeks reconsideration of a prior award holding them responsible for Dr. Adelberg's $4,237.50 report. The defendant argues the judge ignored a prior order for an Agreed Medical Evaluation (AME) and that the applicant's attorney improperly proceeded with Dr. Adelberg's exam. The Board granted reconsideration, preliminarily finding it may be inequitable to place the full cost on the defendant, and intends to split the expense between the defendant and applicant's attorney. A dissenting opinion argues the defendant's own correspondence shows an ongoing dispute regarding the AME, supporting the original award of liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical-Legal ReportAgreed Medical EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorJoint Findings and AwardLabor Code Section 4062(a)Stipulation and OrderEquitable PowersLien Claimant
References
1
Case No. ADJ8606940
Regular
Apr 18, 2013

ANGELICA PEREZ vs. PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for removal or reconsideration regarding the applicant's entitlement to multiple Panel Qualified Medical Examiners (PQMEs). The defendant contested the procedural validity of the applicant's PQME requests, while the applicant asserted proper procedure was followed due to the defendant's lack of response to an Agreed Medical Examiner offer. The Board found that the February 4, 2013 notation was not a final order, as PQME requests remained pending with the Medical Unit. Therefore, the petition was denied without prejudice to the Medical Unit's future determination on the propriety of the PQME requests.

Panel Qualified Medical ExaminersPQMEPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryCumulative InjuryAgreed Medical ExaminerAMEMedical UnitAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Lyle A.

This case concerns the legally insufficient procedures used by the Monroe County Department of Human Services regarding the administration of psychotropic medication to a child, Lyle, in foster care. The Department failed to secure proper informed consent from Lyle's biological mother for Depakote Sprinkles, relying instead on a caseworker to communicate medical information. Furthermore, the Department did not have a reasonable procedure to respond meaningfully when the mother attempted to withdraw her consent, despite her constitutional liberty interest in avoiding unwanted drug administration. The court found that a parent maintains the right to make medication determinations for a child in foster care, and the Department must either honor consent withdrawal or seek a court order to continue medication. The permanency hearing report was otherwise approved, with the goal of returning Lyle to his parent.

Foster CarePsychotropic MedicationInformed ConsentParental RightsChild Protection ServicesMedical Treatment RefusalWithdrawal of ConsentDue ProcessChild NeglectMonroe County
References
12
Case No. 2006 NY Slip Op 26532, 14 Misc 3d 842
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2006

Matter of Lyle A.

The case concerns Lyle A., a 4½-year-old child in foster care, who was prescribed Depakote Sprinkles for behavioral issues. The Monroe County Department of Human Services (Department) obtained consent from his mother through a caseworker, not the prescribing physician, and failed to respond adequately to her attempts to withdraw consent. The Family Court, Monroe County, ruled that the Department's procedures for obtaining parental consent for psychotropic medication and handling withdrawal of consent were legally insufficient, violating the child's and parent's due process and liberty rights. The court emphasized that informed consent requires direct physician consultation and that parents maintain the right to make medication decisions for children in foster care. The decision mandates the Department to reform its procedures for medication administration and consent.

Child NeglectFoster CarePsychotropic MedicationParental ConsentInformed ConsentDue ProcessLiberty InterestsMedical TreatmentWithdrawal of ConsentFamily Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weber v. Stony Brook Hospital

This case addresses the appropriate legal procedures for challenging parental medical decisions. It involves Baby Jane Doe, born with severe disorders, whose parents opted for conservative medical treatment. An unrelated Vermont resident initiated a judicial proceeding, leading to the appointment of a guardian ad litem who sought court authorization for surgery against the parents' wishes. The court found that the proceeding was improperly initiated, as it bypassed the specific provisions of the Family Court Act designed for child protective proceedings, which typically involve child protective agencies. The decision emphasizes the Legislature's intent for judicial restraint and proper procedural adherence in cases concerning parental responsibility for child medical care. Consequently, the Appellate Division's dismissal of the proceeding was affirmed, without costs.

parental rightsmedical decision-makingchild protectionFamily Court Actguardian ad litemjudicial interventionprocedural due processspina bifidalegal standingappellate review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gartenbaum v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Plaintiff Ilona Gartenbaum, a white employee, filed a Title VII racial discrimination lawsuit against Beth Israel Medical Center and three supervisors, alleging she was denied promotions in favor of less qualified black employees. The court, sua sponte, questioned her counsel, Bart Nason's, pre-filing investigation under Rule 11, noting prior union grievance procedures and an arbitration, where race was not an issue, had not supported Gartenbaum's claims. While Mr. Nason's investigation was found to be inadequate, relying on the client's assertions and an unsupported affidavit from a union representative, the court acknowledged that Gartenbaum could make out a prima facie case for racial discrimination concerning at least two denied promotions. Consequently, the court denied Rule 11 sanctions at this juncture and allowed the Title VII claim to proceed to discovery. Additionally, the court ordered the consolidation of this action with a separate pro se retaliation lawsuit filed by Gartenbaum against the same defendants.

Title VIIRacial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRule 11 SanctionsPre-Filing InvestigationPrima Facie CaseGrievance ProcedureArbitrationEEOC InvestigationNLRB
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 12,706 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