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

Burger v. Bladt

The infant plaintiff suffered personal injuries resulting in serious learning disabilities and neurological problems following a collision. The defendant moved to compel additional medical examinations by a psychologist, psychiatrist, and a teacher of the neurologically handicapped, as well as a parent intake evaluation by a psychiatric social worker, after the plaintiffs refused to submit to more than a single examination. The Supreme Court partially denied this motion, deeming it overly burdensome. On appeal, the order was modified to grant the defendant's request for an examination by Annella Stevens, a teacher of the neurologically handicapped, and an interview by a psychiatric social worker to obtain the child's developmental history, affirming the order as modified.

Personal InjuryMedical ExaminationDiscoveryAppellate ProcedureInfant PlaintiffNeurological ProblemsLearning DisabilitiesSupreme CourtPre-Trial DiscoveryCourt Order Modification
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dibble v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

The Supreme Court order was unanimously modified on appeal. The modification involved deleting the provision that granted the third-party defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to provide authorization for all of the plaintiff's workers' compensation records and medical records. The court reasoned that CPLR 3102 [a] does not contain any provision allowing a third-party defendant to obtain such authorization from the plaintiff. The order, as modified, was affirmed without costs.

Discovery DisputeWorkers' Compensation RecordsMedical Records DisclosureMotion to CompelCPLR 3102 [a]Appellate Court RulingPlaintiff RightsThird-Party Defendant ActionErie County Supreme CourtOrder Modification
References
2
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. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685) ADJ3521523 (OAK 0322592) ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Nov 19, 2015

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order setting a mandatory settlement conference and deferring the request to set aside a prior order compelling medical examination attendance. The Board found that the issue of setting aside the two-year-old compelling order must be resolved before a settlement conference. Applicant must comply with the order or show good cause for setting it aside, and defendant may seek an order under Labor Code section 4053. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, starting with a status conference.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJDiscoverySet Aside OrderLabor Code section 4053Rescind OrderTrial Level
References
0
Case No. ADJ8627591
Regular
Jan 28, 2019

JOEY ADNEY vs. AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding the WCJ's order compelling attendance at a Labor Code section 4050 medical appointment was not a final order. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, stating that Labor Code section 4050 explicitly allows employers to request medical examinations at reasonable intervals. While acknowledging the limited admissibility of such reports, the Board found no error in the WCJ's ruling that the applicant must attend the examination.

Labor Code section 4050Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalmedical-legal evaluationPanel QMEinterlocutory decisionsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmcomprehensive medical evaluationadministrative law judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ3970584
Regular
Dec 09, 2008

RUSSELL DEAN NELSON vs. RENAISSANCE HOTEL, MARIOTT HOT SPRINGS

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order compelling payment for an independent medical examiner. The Board found the WCJ abused discretion by bypassing the preferred procedure of seeking clarification from the existing Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Patzakis. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ and parties to direct specific questions to Dr. Patzakis before considering a new medical examiner.

RemovalWCJLabor Code Section 5701Due ProcessIndustrial InjuryFindings and AwardReconsiderationDisarrayAdjudicationApportionment
References
1
Case No. ADJ519728
Regular
Aug 08, 2011

LOWELL BAPTISTE vs. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding industrial injury and temporary total disability dating back to 2000. The Board found that the medical opinion relied upon by the workers' compensation judge was not substantial evidence due to staleness, lack of complete records, and insufficient specialization. To ensure a fair resolution, the Board ordered new evaluations by independent orthopedic and psychiatric physicians, who will report on all outstanding medical issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompelling Medical EvaluationsTemporary Total DisabilityIndustrial InjuryOrthopedicsPsychiatrySubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionWCJ
References
2
Case No. ADJ218892 (OXN 0145664)
Regular
May 01, 2012

JACOBO GARCIA ALVARO vs. SAN MARINO PLASTERING, INC., LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE, Administered by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order compelling attendance at a medical examination was not a final order. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable injury to justify removal. Additionally, the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was unverified, and the defect was not cured despite notice, further supporting its dismissal. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the WCJ's order for the applicant to attend the examination.

Panel Qualified Medical ExaminationPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJfinal ordersubstantive rightsirreparable harmsubstantial prejudiceverificationLabor Code section 5902
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 27,884 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