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

People v. Ackerson

In a felony driving while intoxicated trial, defendant Scott Ackerson moved to preclude the testimony of an emergency medical technician (EMT), Diane Wood, citing the physician-patient privilege under CPLR 4504(a). The court denied the motion, stating that evidentiary privileges, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed. The Legislature has not explicitly extended this privilege to EMTs, despite creating other specific privileges. The court found no evidence that the EMT acted as an agent for a physician. The opinion emphasized that an EMT's role is to stabilize patients, distinct from a physician's role of diagnosis and treatment, thus not falling within the purpose of the CPLR 4504 privilege.

PrivilegeEmergency Medical TechnicianEMTPhysician-Patient PrivilegeCPLR 4504Statutory InterpretationEvidentiary PrivilegeFelony DWITestimony PreclusionAgency
References
6
Case No. 533089
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2021

Matter of Barden v. General Physicians PC

Claimant, a patient services representative, sought to amend her workers' compensation claim to include left shoulder aggravation after a work-related injury to her right shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed this request, finding that claimant failed to provide sufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her employment and the left shoulder condition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court noted that the claimant's treating physician opined the left shoulder pathology was largely preexisting and unrelated to the work injury, and other medical opinions either lacked sufficient weight or were based on inaccurate information, providing no basis to disturb the Board's finding.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausationMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionClaim AmendmentPatient Services Representative
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Yannucci v. Consolidated Freightways

A claimant, a truck driver, sustained back and shoulder injuries after striking a curb. He returned to a light-duty clerical position but later retired. The Workers' Compensation Board denied him further benefits, ruling he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. On appeal, the central issue was whether his disability caused or contributed to his retirement. Conflicting medical opinions were presented, with his treating physician recommending retirement due to a 75% permanent partial disability, while the employer's physician believed he could continue light-duty work. The Board credited the employer's physician, noting the employer's accommodations and no lost work time in the light-duty role. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported its decision.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary withdrawal from labor marketDisability benefitsLight-duty workMedical evidencePermanent partial disabilityCredibility determinationSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewRetirement
References
6
Case No. ADJ11995067
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

ADELINA PEREZ vs. KYONG AE YUN, CHONG MYON YUN, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Adelina Perez sought removal of a May 9, 2022, Findings & Order (F&O) by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found Dr. Marcel Ponton's medical-legal report inadmissible and ordered his replacement, arguing Dr. Ponton was a treating physician to whom Labor Code section 4062.3 did not apply. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the petition as one for reconsideration and found that Dr. Ponton was indeed a treating physician, not a panel-selected medical-legal evaluator, rendering section 4062.3 inapplicable. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's F&O, substituted new findings affirming Dr. Ponton's role as a treating physician, and ordered his continuation as the medical-legal neuropsychological evaluator.

RemovalReconsiderationLabor Code section 4062.3Ex parte communicationMedical-legal evaluatorTreating physicianMPNNeuropsychological assessmentTraumatic brain injuryAdmissibility of evidence
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'KEEFE v. Bowen

Josephine O’Keefe and Louis Scheibeler, patients at Belair Nursing Home, sought Medicare Part A benefits for post-hospital extended care, which were denied by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. They initiated a proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 1395ff(b) to review these final determinations. The court determined that the absence of a physician's certification, a prerequisite for benefits under Medicare regulations, compelled the affirmance of the denial of benefits. The decision highlighted that neither the initial hospital physicians nor the Belair Nursing Home physicians provided the required daily skilled nursing care certification. The court also examined the role of DMS-1 forms, primarily used for Medicaid, and the challenges faced by Utilization Review Committees in New York due to the scarcity of appropriate intermediate care facilities.

Medicare BenefitsPost-Hospital Extended CareSkilled Nursing CarePhysician CertificationDenial of BenefitsUtilization Review CommitteeMedicaid ActCustodial CareHealth and Human ServicesRegulatory Compliance
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tesillo v. Emergency Physician Associates, Inc.

Manuel Tesillo sued Emergency Physician Associates, Inc. (EPA) for medical malpractice, alleging vicarious liability for the negligence of Dr. William C. Shepherd, an emergency physician at Schuyler Hospital. EPA moved for summary judgment, arguing Dr. Shepherd was an independent contractor. The court found material issues of fact regarding the extent of EPA's control over Dr. Shepherd and its managerial obligations to the Emergency Department, which could establish an employer-employee relationship despite contractual terms. Consequently, the court denied EPA's motion for summary judgment, indicating that the determination of Dr. Shepherd's employment status requires further discovery and possibly a trial.

Medical MalpracticeVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorAgency by EstoppelSummary JudgmentPhysician NegligenceEmergency DepartmentControl TestMaterial Issues of Fact
References
18
Case No. ADJ7139261
Regular
Sep 10, 2012

VICENTE AMAYA vs. FLEMING METAL FABRICATORS, INC.,, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, finding that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) improperly rejected the treating physician's opinion. The Board disagreed with the ALJ's assessment that the treating physician lacked accurate historical information regarding the applicant's smoking and diabetes. Crucially, the central dispute concerns the causation of the applicant's stroke, with conflicting opinions from medical experts on the role of hypertension versus a congenital condition. The case is remanded for further proceedings, including potential appointment of a new medical examiner, to fully develop the evidence on complex medical causation issues.

Industrial injuryHypertensionStrokePermanent disabilityApportionmentPanel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Treating physicianSubstantial evidenceAdmissible evidenceMedical causation
References
3
Case No. ADJ4188630 (ANA 0407449), ADJ4338975 (ANA 0407448)
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

Randolph Adair vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON; Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding their prior decision to rescind the award for permanent disability. The Board found the administrative law judge impermissibly used a "range of evidence" approach to determine the Whole Person Impairment (WPI) rating, which is a medical determination requiring physician expertise. The case was returned to the trial level for further medical evaluation by an Agreed Medical Examiner or a physician selected by the judge, as the current medical evidence did not sufficiently support the original rating. The applicant's argument that this limits the judge's role was rejected, as the judge's ultimate determination must be based on substantial medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWhole Person ImpairmentDiagnosis Related EstimatesAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical EvaluatorAMA GuidesPermanent Disability RatingMedical DeterminationJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roginsky v. County of Suffolk, NY

Plaintiff Dr. Martin Roginsky filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the County of Suffolk, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Executive Law. Roginsky, a physician, was constructively discharged from his Staff Physician role at the Suffolk County Jail. He claims the termination was due to his age, citing remarks made by Dr. Gerazi, the Medical Director of the Jail, and that the County used a prescription-writing issue as a pretext. The County moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting it was not Roginsky's employer and that age was not the 'but for' cause of his discharge. The Court denied the County's motion to dismiss, finding that Roginsky had plausibly alleged an employment relationship with the County and satisfied the 'but for' causation standard for his ADEA claim. Consequently, the Court also decided to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationADEAMotion to DismissConstructive DischargeEmployer-Employee RelationshipBut-For CausationPleading StandardsFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Law
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 2,053 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