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. ADJ3206000 (LAO 0877236)
Regular
Aug 10, 2012

JENNIFER HESTER vs. TECHNICOLOR, Permissibly Self-Insured

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision limiting the defendant's payment for hip surgery to the Official Medical Fee Schedule, which the applicant's surgeon deemed insufficient. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to the complex fee dispute, noting that while extraordinary circumstances existed regarding the surgeon's qualifications, the reasonableness of his requested fee was unproven. To resolve this, the Board ordered the appointment of an agreed physician to investigate the surgeon's usual fee and its reasonableness compared to others with similar expertise.

ReconsiderationFindings of FactAgreed PhysicianMedical TreatmentFee ScheduleExtraordinary CircumstancesUsual FeeHip ArthroscopyOsteoplastyChondroplasty
References
1
Case No. SRO 0139219
Regular
Aug 11, 2008

JENNIFER BALKOWITSCH vs. HOME DEPOT

This case involves an applicant denied self-procured medical treatment by her employer, Home Depot, after failing to secure an MPN physician within reasonable proximity who would accept her. The Appeals Board reversed the initial finding, holding Home Depot liable for self-procured treatment. This decision was based on Home Depot's failure to prove it reasonably provided an MPN physician in accordance with accessibility standards, constituting a neglect or refusal to provide reasonable medical treatment.

Medical Provider NetworkMPN access standardsself-procured medical treatmentreasonable medical treatmentneglect or refusalapplicant's residenceemployment dutiesadministrative regulationemployer's obligationphysician availability
References
9
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. ADJ11315508
Regular
Sep 12, 2018

SIERRA PRADO vs. PCG HOSPITALITY, TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns an applicant's request to treat outside her employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN) due to alleged difficulties in scheduling an appointment with an MPN physician. The applicant argued the Medical Access Assistant (MAA) failed to secure an appointment with available MPN doctors, leading to a denial of care. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding no denial of care because the MPN list is not a guarantee of immediate appointment and the MAA reasonably attempted to find a suitable physician. The majority determined that the applicant did not exhaust reasonable efforts to find an MPN doctor, and a dissenting opinion argued the inaccurate MPN list constituted a failure to provide care, justifying out-of-network treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Medical Access Assistant (MAA)Primary Treating Physician (PTP)Denial of CareOut-of-Network TreatmentLabor Code Section 4600Labor Code Section 4616Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8§ 9767.5
References
18
Case No. ADJ9145724
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

ARZAGA, JOSE vs. CROWN AUTOMOTIVE, INC., AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This case involves an applicant seeking to select a pain management specialist outside his employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant argued the MPN failed to provide a qualifying specialist within the required 15-mile/30-minute access standard for a primary treating physician. The Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming the applicant's right to choose an out-of-network physician and reimbursement for investigative costs. The majority reasoned that the MPN must meet the closer access standard for a primary treating physician, even if that physician is a specialist. A dissenting opinion argued that a specialist, when chosen as a primary treating physician, should fall under the 30-mile/60-minute access standard for specialists.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNprimary treating physicianpain management specialistaccess standardAdministrative Director's Rule 9767.5investigative costsLabor Code section 5703Lescallett v. Wal-MartMartinez v. New French Bakery
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06853
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2020

Fornabaio v. Beacon Broadway Co., LLC

Plaintiff Anthony Fornabaio, while attending a concert at a venue owned by Beacon Broadway Company, LLC, experienced a medical incident and refused assistance from Transcare EMTs. He subsequently fell and was injured. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for Beacon and Transcare but granted Beacon's cross-claims against Sports & Entertainment Physicians, P.C. (SEP) for indemnification and breach of contract for failing to procure insurance. The Appellate Division modified this order, granting Beacon's and Transcare's motions to dismiss the complaint, reasoning that their duty to assist terminated when Fornabaio refused help. The court affirmed SEP's liability to Beacon, noting SEP's cross-claim against Transcare for indemnification was not moot.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryNegligenceConcert VenueEMT ServicesRefusal of Medical AssistanceContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ5744485 ADJ6979008 ADJ6979031
Regular
Sep 16, 2010

BRIAN MENICUCCI vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision clarifies that injured employees are not geographically restricted when selecting a physician within a defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). While general treatment under Labor Code section 4600(c) has a reasonable geographic limitation, this restriction does not apply to MPN physicians. The Board affirmed the ALJ's decision, holding that an employee can choose any MPN physician, regardless of distance, after their initial visit. The case specifically avoided ruling on travel expense reimbursement or injuries sustained during travel to the chosen physician.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNreasonable geographic areaLabor Code section 4600(c)Labor Code section 4616 et seq.Administrative Director Rule 9780(h)Administrative Director Rule 9767.6(e)physician of his or her choicestatutory constructionstatutory omission
References
3
Case No. ADJ2401554 (FRE 023126)
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

JOSHUA GROSSMAN vs. ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the judge's decision and finding the defendant liable for self-procured medical treatment. The defendant failed to prove they properly transferred the applicant into their Medical Provider Network (MPN) and neglected or refused to provide reasonable treatment by failing to ensure MPN physician availability. Consequently, the applicant's self-procured treatment from the lien claimant is deemed reasonable and compensable. The defendant is liable for the reasonable cost of this treatment, plus interest and penalties.

MPNself-procured medical treatmentneglect or refusal to provide medical treatmentprimary treating physicianlien claimantreasonable medical treatmentAramark Uniform ServiceAce American Insurance CompanySan Joaquin Accident & Medical GroupKnight v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
References
16
Case No. ADJ9725603
Regular
Nov 23, 2020

LUZ LOZA vs. GOLDBLATT GOLDBLATT/BAY AREA RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order finding the applicant entitled to pre-authorization for their treating physician to issue a PR-4 report at the medical-legal billing rate. While affirming the applicant's right to obtain the report, the Board clarified that the defendant retains the right to object to or raise defenses regarding the physician's billing. The Board reasoned that treating physicians are permitted to provide comprehensive medical-legal evaluations, and such reports are governed by specific medical-legal fee schedules, not the Official Medical Fee Schedule.

PR-4 reportmedical-legal billing ratepre-authorizationprimary treating physician (PTP)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)comprehensive medical evaluationOfficial Medical Fee SchedulePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Order (F&O)Labor Code
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,853 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