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

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. ADJ10917207
Regular
Aug 13, 2019

CARMEN ROJO vs. K & M MEAT COMPANY, STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the necessity of an additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in orthopedic surgery. The Applicant sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (ALJ) order for a new orthopedic QME panel, arguing it was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the original QME's referral for an orthopedic evaluation was for treatment, not a recommendation for a new medical-legal evaluation. Consequently, the Board amended the ALJ's findings, holding there was no good cause for an additional orthopedic QME panel and denying the defendant's request.

QME panelorthopedic surgeryreconsiderationremovalFindings & Orderchiropractic QMEmedical-legal evaluationgood causesupplemental pleadingmedical dispute
References
9
Case No. ADJ7109314
Regular
Apr 22, 2011

YESIKA LEON vs. CREATIVE WOOD PRODUCTS INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST SPRINGFIELD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the challenged order compelling a medical evaluation was not a final decision. The Board also denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The applicant had sought to compel a chiropractic evaluation instead of an orthopedic one based on their interpretation of physician specialties and a prior physician's opinion. The Board found no basis to deviate from the administrative law judge's order for an orthopedic evaluation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJmedical evaluationchiropractic QMEorthopedic evaluationfinal ordersubstantive rightsirreparable harm
References
5
Case No. ADJ2628303
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

GLORIA CAIRES vs. SHARP HEALTHCARE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and returned the case for further proceedings due to insufficient medical evidence on apportionment. Specifically, the Board found that the opinions of the orthopedic and psychiatric medical evaluators regarding the apportionment of permanent disability lacked substantial medical evidence. The orthopedic evaluator's apportionment methodology, referencing an AMA Guides example, was deemed improper under current Labor Code sections 4663 and 4664. The psychiatric evaluator's apportionment was also found insufficient as it did not adequately explain how psychiatric permanent disability should be apportioned separately from injury causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Disability ApportionmentQualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent ImpairmentRange of Motion MethodDiagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE) MethodCompensable ConsequenceCausation of Permanent DisabilitySubstantial Medical Evidence
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
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. ADJ8491619 ADJ9586677
Regular
May 17, 2019

Edward GAA vs. Intercare Holdings Insurance, The Hartford

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for removal, overturning a prior order that denied a rheumatological evaluation. While dismissing the petition for reconsideration, the Board found good cause for an additional QME panel in rheumatology, acknowledging the orthopedic QME's limited expertise in this specialty. The applicant must still attend a re-evaluation with the orthopedic QME, who must review a job analysis.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Rheumatological evaluationOrthopedic QMECumulative traumaIndustrial injuryMedical-legal issuesBias
References
1
Case No. ADJ9317724
Regular
Jul 23, 2015

JUAN TORRES vs. LINEAGE LOGISTICS COLD STORAGE, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. The applicant sought to overturn a Minute Order compelling an orthopedic QME evaluation, arguing the existing orthopedic panel was improperly obtained and preferred a treating doctor. The Board adopted the WCJ's recommendation, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, as removal is an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. The applicant's preference for a treating doctor did not override the WCJ's order for a QME evaluation requested to clarify a prior medical opinion regarding potential knee surgery.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorOrthopedic QMEChiropractic QMEKnee SurgeryIndependent Medical OpinionMPNMedical Treatment AuthorizationPrimary Treating PhysicianReconsideration
References
2
Case No. ADJ11861160
Regular
Oct 25, 2019

ADRIANA MARTINEZ vs. AVITUS, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

This case involves a dispute over the selection of Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels for an applicant with claimed injuries to multiple body parts. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinded the prior decision, and found that the applicant's chiropractic QME panel request was proper while the defendant's orthopedic surgery panel request was improper. The WCAB determined that chiropractic medicine is the appropriate specialty and struck the orthopedic surgery panel, ordering the parties to proceed with the chiropractic QME. The WCAB clarified that while chiropractors cannot perform surgery or prescribe medication, they are qualified to evaluate injuries within their scope of practice.

QME panel disputeremoval petitionchiropractic specialtyorthopedic surgery specialtyLabor Code 4062.2Medical Directoradministrative law judgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardproper panel selectioninvalid panel request
References
9
Case No. ADJ7212946
Regular
Dec 13, 2012

JOSE QUINTERO vs. CORPORATE PERSONNEL NETWORK, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO., administered by CHARTIS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the admissibility of Dr. Konstat's psychiatric evaluation. The Board found Dr. Konstat's report inadmissible because it was a medical-legal evaluation obtained in violation of statutory procedures for represented employees, bypassing the requirement for an Agreed Medical Evaluator or Qualified Medical Evaluator. Consequently, the Board amended the prior award to exclude industrial injury to the psyche due to lack of substantial medical evidence. The applicant's award for orthopedic injuries and medical treatment was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJose QuinteroCorporate Personnel NetworkNew Hampshire Insurance Co.ChartisAmended Findings and Awardindustrial injuryleft shoulderneckback
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,214 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