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. ADJ9873183
Regular
Feb 24, 2020

WONDA BRAZILE TRAYLOR vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES; Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The WCAB affirmed the prior award finding the County of Los Angeles liable for copy services provided by lien claimant Med-Legal, LLC. The defendant failed to issue a timely and compliant Explanation of Review (EOR) for invoice 1313134, thereby waiving objections to its reasonableness. Consequently, the lien claimant is entitled to the reasonable value of the invoice, plus penalties and interest retroactive to receipt. The case is remanded to the WCJ to determine the exact reasonable value of the services.

WCABReconsiderationLien ClaimantCopy ServicesExplanation of ReviewMedical-Legal ExpensesLabor Code Section 4622PenaltiesInterestReasonable Value
References
2
Case No. ADJ9116549
Regular
Mar 13, 2020

EMMA MEDINA vs. SUNRISE RESTAURANT, LLC, DENNY'S RESTAURANT, CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CHUBB INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns the reimbursement for lien claimant Preferred Scan's copy services. The Board granted reconsideration to clarify what constitutes medical-legal expenses and the reasonable value of copy services. The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and returned the matter for further proceedings, finding that certain copy services for medical records were properly considered medical-legal expenses. However, the reasoning for doubling the copy service fee schedule was insufficient and requires further development at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantCopy ServicesMedical-Legal ServicesCopy Service Fee ScheduleLabor CodeSubpoena Duces TecumExplanation of ReviewCompromise and Release
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. ADJ9040755
Regular
Apr 26, 2018

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. AREVALO LANDSCAPING SERVICE, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant, Citywide Scanning Service, seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding that their services were valued at $\$2,091.61$. The lien claimant argued that the defendant waived objections by failing to submit timely explanations of review (EORs) and that their billing was supported by evidence, entitling them to penalties. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding that the issue of timely EORs was waived as it was not raised at the initial trial. The only remaining issue for trial was the reasonable value of the services, and the WCAB upheld the administrative law judge's determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFinding and OrderExplanation of Review (EOR)Reasonableness and NecessityLachesPhotocopy ServicesCompromise and ReleaseLien Trial
References
1
Case No. ADJ1885105 (LAO 0822725)
Regular
May 15, 2012

SCOTT SIMONS vs. SUPERHEAT SERVICES, INC/INSPERITY, KEMPER INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CMS/ SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, finding no unreasonable delay in the provision of medical treatment. Applicant failed to establish a delay in the provision of home care or transportation services as no bills had been submitted to the defendant. The issue of the reasonable value of home health care services was deferred pending a bill submission and potential negotiation between the parties. The Board emphasized the need for better communication between the parties to avoid further litigation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationUnreasonable DelayMedical TreatmentHome Health CareTransportationPenaltyLabor Code Section 5814Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rumsey v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Plaintiffs, employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services and military reservists, challenged Departmental Directive # 2212, which allowed the rescheduling of their regular days off to coincide with military drills. They claimed this violated their rights under federal and state military laws and the Equal Protection Clause, arguing it discriminated against them by not requiring similar rescheduling for other types of leave. The defendants asserted the directive was necessary to address staffing shortages and prevent abuse of military leave, noting that pass days were routinely rescheduled for various other reasons. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the directive did not constitute discrimination, as it did not require 'special accommodations' for reservists beyond what was afforded to other employees, consistent with the precedent set in Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

Military LeaveEmployment RightsWork ScheduleDiscrimination ClaimSummary Judgment MotionCollective BargainingSeniority RightsDepartmental DirectiveFederal LawState Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1988

Levitt v. Civil Service Commission

The City of New York appealed a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed the Civil Service Commission's decision to reject the reclassification of the deckhand position from the competitive to the noncompetitive civil service class. Petitioners argued that the Commission applied an overly strict standard, acted inconsistently with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the NY Constitution, based its decision solely on a presumption despite expert opinions, and failed to adequately state its reasoning. The Appellate Division found that the Commission properly used the term "compelling" to reflect the constitutional preference for competitive examinations and that its decision, while brief, allowed for judicial review. Citing the public safety roles of deckhands, similar to police and firefighters, the court concluded that competitive examinations are feasible and petitioners failed to demonstrate an impediment to compliance with job-relatedness requirements.

Civil Service LawJob ReclassificationCompetitive ExaminationNoncompetitive ClassPublic SafetyDeckhand PositionAppellate ReviewCivil Rights Act Title VIINew York ConstitutionArbitrary Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stolarski v. Family Services of Westchester, Inc.

Plaintiff Arlene Stolarski appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which dismissed her cause of action to recover damages for conscious pain and suffering in a wrongful death action. The decedent, after an apparent suicide attempt and subsequent consultations with Family Services of Westchester, Inc., died by suicide shortly after. Plaintiff alleged negligence by Family Services in treating the decedent's depression, causing conscious pain and suffering between October 19, 2005, and October 28, 2005. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that such damages couldn't be recovered in a wrongful death action and that the depression was pre-existing. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a cause of action for personal injuries, including conscious pain and suffering due to professional malpractice, survives the decedent's death and may be recovered by her estate, and that pre-existing conditions do not preclude proving exacerbation by alleged negligent treatment.

Wrongful DeathConscious Pain and SufferingProfessional MalpracticeNegligenceSuicideMental Health TreatmentSurvival StatuteAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissPre-existing Condition
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 10,675 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