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

Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Plaintiff Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, PC. sued defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (NYCMFIC) for overdue first-party no-fault benefits following a brain MRI performed on Abdelghani Kinane. NYCMFIC moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was premature because Elmont allegedly failed to respond to verification requests, thereby tolling NYCMFIC's time to pay or deny the claim. Elmont countered with an affidavit from its billing supervisor, Brijkumar Yamraj, and a certificate of mailing, proving the requested MRI films and information were sent to NYCMFIC on November 12, 2008. The court found Elmont's proof of mailing sufficient to establish a response, thus denying NYCMFIC's motion and subsequently granting summary judgment to Elmont upon searching the record.

No-fault insuranceVerification requestsSummary judgmentProof of mailingMedical benefitsInsurance claims processTolling of time limitMotor vehicle accidentRadiology fee scheduleBusiness records
References
24
Case No. 2016-139 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2018

New Millennium Radiology, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal concerning a no-fault benefits claim where the defendant sought to stay the action pending a Workers' Compensation Board determination, alleging the plaintiff's assignor was injured during employment. The Civil Court initially denied the defendant's motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Term reversed this decision, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Board holds primary jurisdiction in determining the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law. Consequently, the matter is to be held in abeyance, and the plaintiff is directed to promptly apply to the Board; failure to do so within 90 days will result in the dismissal of the complaint and denial of the cross-motion.

Workers' CompensationNo-Fault BenefitsPrimary JurisdictionStay of ActionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployment InjuryAssignee ClaimInsurance DisputeCivil Procedure
References
9
Case No. 03-16-00395-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2017

Wylie Cavin Lillian Cavin And Eagle Radiology, PLLC v. Kristin Abbott and William Abbott

This case stems from a family dispute where parents, Wylie and Lillian Cavin, vehemently opposed their adult daughter Kristin Abbott's marriage to William Abbott. The Cavins engaged in extensive communications alleging Bill used "Marxist" brainwashing and mind-control, hired private investigators to stalk the couple, and stole Kristin's car, among other actions. The Abbotts sued for various torts, including defamation, conversion, and assault. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of the Cavins' motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) for the assault claim, citing a bodily injury exemption. However, it reversed the denial for all other claims, finding them to be "communications" related to "health or safety" or "judicial proceedings" under the TCPA's broad definitions, requiring their dismissal and a remand for attorney's fees.

Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA)Anti-SLAPP LawDefamationAssaultIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)Family DisputeParental InterferenceFreedom of SpeechRight to PetitionBodily Injury Exemption
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Westchester Radiological Associates, P.C. v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a group of hospital-based radiologists, sued Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Inc., alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and the New York Donnelly Act. The radiologists claimed unlawful restraint of trade, monopolization, and price fixing due to Empire's policy preventing direct billing for professional radiological services. Empire moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing failure to state a claim under Section 1, lack of standing for Section 2 claims, and consequently, dismissal of the pendent state law claim. The court denied Empire's motion in its entirety, determining that Empire acted as an intervening "third force" in a non-exempt relationship and that the radiologists had direct standing due to the precisely intended nature of their alleged injuries.

Antitrust LawSherman ActDonnelly ActMonopolyPrice FixingHealth InsuranceRadiologyBlue Cross Blue ShieldLegal StandingMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. 3-93-515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1994

Suzanna L. Carlson and Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island v. William P. Taylor, M.D. Austin Back Clinic Capital Radiology Association J. Neil Rutledge, M.D.Richard D. Tallman, M.D. And Austin Diagnostic Clinic

Appellant Suzanne L. Carlson brought a medical malpractice action against multiple appellees. Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island intervened as Carlson's employer's workers' compensation carrier. The trial court struck Carlson's expert witnesses and granted summary judgment for the appellees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly striking expert witnesses and freezing discovery, thereby depriving Carlson of the opportunity to present controverting evidence. The case is remanded for a new trial.

Medical MalpracticeExpert Witness ExclusionSummary Judgment ReversalDiscovery AbuseAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil ProcedureTrial Court DiscretionWorkers' Compensation InterventionRemand for New TrialStandard of Care
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Rabiner

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff) sued Eric Hagerbrant and other defendants, including Metropolitan Radiological Imaging, P.C., to recover over $2,000,000 in alleged fraudulent no-fault insurance payments. Plaintiff asserted claims for common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and sought a declaratory judgment, alleging that Metropolitan was fraudulently incorporated and ineligible for payments. Defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing preemption by New York Insurance Law § 5109, disputing the eligibility of independent contractors for No-Fault benefits, and asserting a statute of limitations defense. The court denied the defendants' motion in its entirety, finding that § 5109 did not eliminate a private right of action, the Insurance Department's position on independent contractors was valid, and the statute of limitations argument was premature.

Fraudulent IncorporationNo-Fault InsuranceUnjust EnrichmentDeclaratory Judgment ActionMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionInsurance Law InterpretationMedical Professional CorporationsIndependent Contractors EligibilityStatute of Limitations Defense
References
40
Case No. ADJ9070475
Regular
Dec 15, 2017

CARTO GROZCO vs. SUNSET MASONRY & CONCRETE, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for TOWER CASTLEPOINT INSURANCE

Radiology Disc of Encino's petition for reconsideration is dismissed because it was not filed from a final order. The Appeals Board grants removal, rescinds the previous order, and returns the case to the trial level. This allows Radiology Disc an opportunity to argue its jurisdiction and present evidence regarding its medical-legal services. The WCJ should have adjudicated jurisdiction rather than taking the case off calendar.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff-Calendar OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderMedical-Legal Expense DisputeWCJRemoval Granted
References
7
Case No. ADJ8730365 ADJ8730366
Regular
Sep 13, 2016

JAVIER ZAVALA vs. WESTERN PACIFIC ROOFING CORP., SUSSEX INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves lien claimants Mobile Radiological and Comet Radiology whose liens were dismissed after they failed to appear at a lien conference and respond to Notices of Intention to Dismiss. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the lien claimants' liens were filed in case ADJ8730366, but the conference and subsequent dismissal notices pertained to case ADJ8730365. Furthermore, proof of service for the dismissal notices was improperly filed only in the unrelated case. The Board rescinded the dismissal orders and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrders Dismissing LiensNotice of Intention to Dismiss LiensLien ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessNotice and Request for Allowance of LienProof of ServiceElectronic Adjudication Management SystemWCAB Rule 10770.1Improper Service
References
0
Case No. ADJ1744141
Regular
Nov 10, 2010

YANTI SHARIFF vs. RITE AID CORPORATION, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS

The defendant, Rite Aid Corporation, sought reconsideration of a Stipulation and Order requiring them to pay two lien claimants, Sanjiv Jain, M.D. and Advanced Radiology. Rite Aid argued these stipulations were entered into in error, claiming Dr. Jain's lien was previously dismissed and Advanced Radiology's lien was settled. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was unverified. However, the WCAB noted Rite Aid can still file a Declaration of Readiness for a hearing to address good cause for setting aside the stipulations.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissing PetitionStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantUnverified PleadingVacate Lien OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeLien DismissedLien SettledDeclaration of Readiness
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 52 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