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. GRO 0031003 GRO 0031004
Regular
May 19, 2008

LOLA WATTS vs. OPTIONS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous award, and returned the case to the trial level. The PWCJ's prior findings did not adequately account for the applicant's cognitive deficits, as determined by a neuropsychologist. The Board emphasized that all factors of disability must be considered in the permanent disability rating, requiring further proceedings to develop the record.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationFindings and AwardPresiding Workers Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCognitive DeficitsOrthopedistNeuropsychologist
References
3
Case No. ADJ2187609 (FRE 0247873)
Regular
Dec 28, 2012

ALICIA ESTRADA vs. FOOTHILL PACKING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case involves an applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits due to an industrial injury. The defendant sought reconsideration and removal of an order requiring the applicant to be examined by a Spanish-speaking neuropsychologist. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration, finding the order interlocutory and not a final determination of substantive rights. While the Board denied removal, one Commissioner dissented, arguing the WCJ erred by relying on inapplicable protocols and mandating a language-specific examiner rather than a certified interpreter, which could cause substantial prejudice and set an improper precedent.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalWCJQualified Medical ExaminerAgreed Medical ExaminerComing and Going RuleDoctor ShoppingLabor CodeInterlocutory Order
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Giudi v. New Paltz Fire Department

The Workers' Compensation Board's finding that the claimant remains unable to perform their prior employment duties as a chef, or those of a reasonable substitute, due to cognitive impairments, is supported by substantial evidence. This evidence includes the claimant's testimony and the opinion of a clinical neuropsychologist, who stated that the cognitive impairments prevent the claimant from working as a chef or military police officer. The Board's crediting of this evidence, which justified the finding of over 75% earning capacity loss, was upheld. The employer's argument that the Board applied an incorrect legal standard was rejected. The decision is affirmed.

cognitive impairmentsearning capacity lossdisability benefitsneuropsychologyoccupational injurymedical opinionappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceworkers' compensation lawemployment duties
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2007

Guzman v. 4030 Bronx Boulevard Associates L.L.C.

This appeal concerns the preclusion of expert testimony from a neuropsychologist, Dr. Elkhonon Goldberg, regarding the causation of infant plaintiff Tyrone Guzman's neurological deficits. The plaintiff has a history of multiple head traumas, and the lawsuit stems from alleged injuries sustained during a bathroom ceiling collapse. The trial court precluded Dr. Goldberg's testimony due to a lack of objective medical foundation to establish that the June 2001 incident was the proximate cause, subsequently dismissing the complaint. The appellate court agreed with the preclusion of testimony on causation but found an abuse of discretion in denying a continuance to allow plaintiffs to secure another medical expert. The matter was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Expert TestimonyNeuropsychologyTraumatic Brain InjuryCausationMotion in LimineContinuanceAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary StandardPersonal InjuryHead Trauma
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colegrove v. Colvin

Plaintiff Scott Wilbur Colegrove seeks judicial review of the denial of disability insurance benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security, alleging the Administrative Law Judge's decision lacked substantial evidence. The Court denied the Commissioner's motion and partially granted Plaintiff's motion, remanding the case for further administrative proceedings. The remand is primarily due to the ALJ's failure to properly weigh the opinions of treating physician Dr. Walters and neuropsychologist Dr. Fleeman, particularly concerning cognitive impairments and functional limitations from seizures and back pain. The court also ordered a reevaluation of Plaintiff's credibility and the Step 5 determination regarding available jobs in the national economy.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleCredibility AssessmentVocational Expert TestimonySeizure DisorderDepressionChronic Back Pain
References
18
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 31652(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Eddine v. Federated Department Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured by a falling sign while working behind the Cartier counter at Bloomingdale's. The complaint against Richemont, owner of Cartier, was dismissed, but cross claims for indemnification from other defendants were converted into third-party claims against Richemont. Richemont's motion for summary judgment dismissing these cross claims was denied. Richemont's subsequent motion to renew its prior motion was also denied due to a lack of due diligence in obtaining expert reports and providing a reasonable explanation for their late submission. The court identified an issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff's injury constituted a 'gravely disabling injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, citing contradictory medical opinions from a neuropsychologist and the defendant's examiner. Both denials and the conversion of claims were unanimously affirmed on appeal.

Brain InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Summary JudgmentMotion to RenewCross ClaimsThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationAppellate ReviewMedical Examiner ReportsGrave Injury
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03799 [206 AD3d 451]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Moises-Ortiz v. FDB Acquisition LLC

Arch Insurance Group, Inc., the insurer for plaintiff's employer, RNC Industries, LLC, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied Arch's motion for summary judgment. Arch sought to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims asserted against its insured, RNC. Arch presented evidence, including a neuropsychologist's report, indicating that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, as the plaintiff's symptoms were exaggerated, and he could return to work. The Appellate Division, First Department, found that Arch made a prima facie showing and that the defendants failed to raise an issue of fact. Consequently, the Appellate Division unanimously reversed the lower court's order, granting Arch's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the claims.

Summary JudgmentGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 11IndemnificationContribution ClaimsAppellate DivisionNeuropsychological EvaluationPrima Facie ShowingExaggerated SymptomsTemporary Total Disability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Veryzer v. American International Life Assurance Co.

Robert Veryzer, Ph.D. ("Plaintiff") sued American International Life Assurance Company of New York ("AI Life") under ERISA, challenging the insurer's denial of his long-term disability benefits. AI Life had limited benefits to 24 months, classifying Veryzer's disability as "Mental Illness" despite extensive medical evidence from his treating physicians and neuropsychologists attributing it to mercury poisoning from Hepatitis A and B vaccinations. The court found AI Life's decision arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, citing the insurer's reliance on non-examining experts who ignored medical literature and procedural irregularities in the claims process. Highlighting AI Life's conflict of interest as both administrator and payor, the court denied AI Life's motion for summary judgment, granted Veryzer's cross-motion, reversed the denial of benefits, and ordered AI Life to provide the requested coverage.

ERISA claimsLong-term disabilitySummary judgment motionsArbitrary and capricious reviewMercury toxicityVaccination injuryCognitive impairment benefitsMedical expert testimonyInsurance bad faithClaims processing irregularities
References
26
Showing 1-8 of 8 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