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

Sexton v. Medicare

Plaintiff Kevin Sexton sued the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to prevent direct reimbursement for Medicare payments made after he was injured in an accident. Sexton argued that Medicare should pursue the primary insurer, American Transit Insurance Company, or the medical providers, rather than him. HHS moved to dismiss the case, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Sexton's failure to demonstrate an actual or imminent injury and to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted HHS's motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. It ruled that Sexton lacked standing because Medicare had not yet formally demanded reimbursement from him, and its right to recover from a beneficiary only accrues after the beneficiary receives a primary payment, making his alleged injury purely speculative.

MedicareMedicare Secondary Payer ActMSP ActSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissStandingRipeness DoctrineConditional PaymentsReimbursement ClaimPrimary Payer
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello

This is a dissenting opinion challenging the majority's conclusion that an association of New York Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNAs) lacks standing to sue the Commissioner of Health. The CRNAs challenged new 'Guidelines' which stipulate that CRNAs should provide services in office-based surgery only under supervision by a physician, dentist, or podiatrist 'qualified by law, regulation or hospital appointment to perform and supervise the administration of the anesthesia.' The dissent argues that the Guidelines, though presented as recommendations, are effectively regulations that will severely injure CRNAs' employment opportunities by requiring the presence of an anesthesiologist, making CRNAs redundant due to cost-prohibitive duplication of services. The dissenting judge criticizes the majority for deeming the CRNAs' evidence of economic harm as 'speculation' despite extensive factual showings from affidavits, asserting that precedent supports standing in such cases.

CRNA supervisionStandingGuidelines as regulationsEconomic injuryNurse anesthetistsAnesthesiologist supervisionOffice-based surgeryHealthcare regulationsJudicial dissentPhysician qualification
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferlazzo v. 18th Avenue Hardware, Inc.

Plaintiff Marie Ferlazzo moved to extinguish liens and subrogation rights asserted by Oxford Health Plan and The Rawlings Company, LLC against her personal injury settlement proceeds. Oxford, administering a Medicare Advantage plan, sought reimbursement for medical expenses. Ferlazzo contended that General Obligations Law § 5-335 (a) barred such claims as Oxford lacked a statutory right of reimbursement. The court examined the Medicare Secondary Payer Act and the Medicare Advantage Program, concluding that unlike Medicare, private Medicare Advantage insurers only have contractual, not statutory, rights to reimbursement. Citing federal precedents, the court ruled that Oxford's claim was subject to state law and not entitled to recovery from the settlement. Consequently, the court granted Ferlazzo's motion to extinguish the liens and subrogation rights.

Personal InjurySubrogationMedicare AdvantageHealth Insurance LienSettlement ProceedsGeneral Obligations LawStatutory InterpretationContractual RightsFederal PreemptionPrivate Insurer
References
4
Case No. ADJ441410
Regular
Oct 03, 2008

HAYDEE NUNEZ vs. FAIRMONT MIRAMAR HOTEL, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's denial of the remaining lien balance. The Board is returning the case to the trial level to investigate potential sanctions against the lien claimant for its actions in filing the petition for reconsideration, citing alleged procedural defects and bad faith. The WCJ's original finding was that the outpatient fusion surgery was not permitted under Medicare Guidelines and the defendant paid more than the reasonable value of the services.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardFairmont Miramar HotelCommerce & Industry Insurance CompanyAIG Domestic ClaimsOutpatient Spine & Surgery CenterLien claimantIndustrial injuryLow back injuryOutpatient fusion surgeryMedicare Guidelines
References
1
Case No. ADJ8897698
Regular
Feb 19, 2015

MICHAEL GIBSON vs. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the initial denial of the applicant's appeal concerning tinnitus masking treatment. The Board found that the Administrative Director's (AD) Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination was invalid because the reviewer failed to follow the statutorily mandated hierarchy of standards for assessing medical necessity. Specifically, the IMR reviewer improperly relied on Medicare guidelines without first considering peer-reviewed scientific and medical evidence, as required by Labor Code section 4610.5(c)(2). Consequently, the case was remanded to the AD for a new IMR by a different reviewer.

Independent Medical ReviewLabor Code section 4610.6(h)Tinnitus masking treatmentMedical necessityPlainly erroneous finding of factOrdinary knowledgeExpert opinionAdministrative DirectorUtilization ReviewSection 4610.5(c)(2) hierarchy
References
0
Case No. CV-23-1298
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Garofalo

Michael Garofalo, a lineman, sustained a left hand crush injury in January 2020 while working for Verizon New York, Inc. His workers' compensation claim was established. Following a permanency evaluation, his treating physician, Brian J. Harley, assessed a 35% schedule loss of use (SLU) of the left hand, using the 2012 New York State Guidelines for Determining Impairment. An independent medical examiner, Thomas R. Haher, initially concurred but later revised his opinion to 50% SLU based on the 2018 Guidelines. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) adopted Harley's 35% SLU opinion, which the Workers' Compensation Board upheld. On appeal, the Appellate Division found that Harley improperly relied on the 2012 Guidelines instead of the applicable 2018 Guidelines, as the first medical evaluation occurred after January 1, 2018. The court determined that the Board's decision, relying on Harley's erroneous application of the guidelines, lacked substantial evidence. The decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for a new determination of the appropriate SLU percentage.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseLeft Hand InjuryMedical Guidelines2018 Impairment GuidelinesAppellate ReviewRemittalMedical Opinion ConflictTraumatic InjuryFractures
References
7
Case No. ADJ3544094 (SAC 0351694) ADJ2331078 (SAC 0354152)
Regular
May 11, 2009

NORMA HODGES vs. CLARCOR, INC., ST. PAUL TRAVELERS

Defendant seeks reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release (C&R) for alleged knee and back injuries due to a dispute over the applicant's Medicare eligibility. The C&R contained a provision stating the applicant was not Medicare eligible, but the defendant later learned she was listed as an active beneficiary. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the C&R, and returned the case to the trial level. This action allows for further proceedings to resolve the factual conflict regarding Medicare status and address any necessary Medicare set-asides.

Order Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationMedicare Secondary Payer lawsQualified Medical EvaluatorGood CauseFraudMutual Mistake of FactDuressUndue InfluenceRescind
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rankin-Fulcher v. Duane Morris, LLP

Plaintiff Elizabeth Rankin-Fulcher sued her former employer, Duane Morris LLP, for reimbursement of COBRA payments, alleging the firm failed to inform her of Medicare eligibility upon termination. Defendant moved to dismiss, asserting no such duty existed and that plaintiff received adequate notice. The court found that defendant's COBRA notification and subsequent communications sufficiently highlighted Medicare eligibility. It further ruled that ERISA plan administrators have no statutory or common-law obligation to individually inform terminated employees aged 65 or older about Medicare as a preferable alternative, as Medicare eligibility is considered common knowledge and the responsibility of HHS. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss.

ERISACOBRAMedicare EligibilityEmployee BenefitsDuty to NotifyFiduciary DutyHealth InsuranceMotion to DismissStatutory InterpretationPlan Administrator
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LEFEVRE v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Plaintiffs, former employees of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, filed a putative class action alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). They challenged amendments to the company's health benefit plans, arguing that Medicare-eligible retirees were required to pay greater dollar amounts and percentages of total premiums for the same coverage compared to non-Medicare eligible retirees. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found that the plans were exempt from ADEA prohibitions due to their coordination with Medicare and also fell within the ADEA's 'equal benefit' safe harbor, as the actual benefits received were the same regardless of Medicare eligibility. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Age DiscriminationADEARetiree Health BenefitsMedicare CoordinationSummary JudgmentEmployee Benefit PlansDiscrimination LawStatutory ExemptionEqual Benefit PrincipleClass Action
References
4
Case No. 526425
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2018

Matter of Gasparro v. Hospice of Dutchess County

Mary Ann Gasparro, a claimant with a permanent partial disability from a 1995 work injury, moved to Nevada. In 2016, her employer's workers' compensation carrier objected to payments for topical pain relief products, LidoPro and Terocin patches, prescribed by a Nevada pain management specialist. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling, deciding that New York's Medical Treatment Guidelines apply to out-of-state treatment for nonresident claimants, a departure from its prior decisions. The Board found the prescribed medications were not in accordance with the guidelines due to concomitant use and duration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, deeming its change in course rational and its application of the guidelines to out-of-state treatment reasonable. The court concluded that the Board's finding of medical necessity and non-compliance with guidelines was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationMedical Treatment GuidelinesOut-of-State Medical CareNonresident ClaimantsPain ManagementTopical Pain ReliefLidoProTerocin PatchesAppellate DivisionBoard Reversal
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 264 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