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. 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. 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. ADJ1448881 (VNO 0460995)
Regular
Sep 06, 2017

CLEMENTE MEJIA vs. PACIFIC MAT, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a prior decision disallowing the balance of a lien for medical treatment provided by Dr. Arroyo. The administrative law judge found Dr. Arroyo failed to prove the reasonableness of services beyond progress and permanent and stationary reports, and that he was adequately compensated for reasonable services. The WCAB held that Labor Code section 4600(b), requiring medical treatment to be consistent with the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) to be considered reasonably required, applied retrospectively to all open cases, including this one. Therefore, the original decision disallowing the remaining portion of the lien was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactOrderMedical treatment lienIndustrial injuryCumulative periodPermanent disabilityReasonableness of services
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Mete v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation

This class action alleged age discrimination in employment against the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities (OMRDD). Plaintiffs, former Chiefs of Developmental Center Treatment Services, claimed disparate treatment and disparate impact arising from a 1989 reduction in force (RIF) that eliminated their positions. All 46 Chiefs, who were over 40, were either demoted or retired, and statistical evidence showed a disproportionate impact on employees over 40. The Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while plaintiffs established a prima facie case, OMRDD provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the RIF (economic conditions and long-standing concerns about the position's utility), which plaintiffs failed to adequately prove was a pretext for discrimination.

Age DiscriminationClass ActionSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactReduction in ForceEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie CaseStatistical Evidence
References
11
Case No. ADJ1718435 (MON 0341690) ADJ2131482 (MON 0340861)
Regular
May 10, 2017

JEROME MITCHELL vs. COMMUTER EXPRESS, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case involves a lien claimant, RS Medical, seeking reconsideration after its $6,800.28 lien for medical treatment was disallowed by the WCJ. The WCJ found RS Medical failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary for the admitted industrial injuries. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ erred by focusing solely on neck treatment when evidence indicated prescriptions were for multiple body parts, including admitted injuries. The matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to re-evaluate the medical evidence and determine the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment.

Lien ClaimReconsiderationWCJUtilization ReviewTENS deviceMedical TreatmentBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceReasonableness and NecessityIndustrial Injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ2401554
Regular
Apr 02, 2013

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

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding its prior decision to grant the lien claimant's claim for medical treatment costs. The Board found that the defendant failed to properly notify the applicant of their Medical Provider Network (MPN) and that the applicant's attempts to secure an MPN physician were unsuccessful. Defendant's failure to provide sufficient assistance in transferring care was deemed a neglect to provide reasonable medical treatment, making them liable for self-procured treatment. The Board also found the lien claimant's treatment reasonable and consistent with the Agreed Medical Examiner's recommendations.

MPNMedical Provider NetworkLien ClaimantReconsiderationSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentAgreed Medical ExaminerPrimary Treating PhysicianLabor Code Section 4600Substantial Medical EvidenceIndustrial Injury
References
7
Case No. ADJ6774605
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

Tammy Tran vs. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRY, ZURICH LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, which limited reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment. The Board found that the ALJ erred by only allowing reimbursement for treatment from the claim date until the denial date. Citing *McCoy v. Industrial Accident Commission*, the Board determined that the employer is liable for all reasonably necessary self-procured medical expenses incurred after the employer denied the claim, as this denial effectively refused to provide treatment. Consequently, the Board rescinded the ALJ's award and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the reasonableness of all self-procured medical expenses.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 4600McCoy v. Industrial Accident CommissionDenial of ClaimReimbursementIndustrial InjuryReasonably Necessary Treatment
References
5
Case No. ADJ1208276 (VEN 0109627)
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

DANIEL GARCIA vs. PEPSI COLA CO.; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior decision and remanded the case for further proceedings concerning chiropractic treatment for an admitted neck and upper back injury. The original decision allowed 16 visits for 2007, deeming them reasonable and necessary, and found the applicant not subject to the 24-visit cap. However, the Board found the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report, used to support the decision, was stale, having been issued ten years prior to the treatment. The Board directed parties to obtain an updated report from the QME, and noted that the defendant failed to conduct utilization review, a proper avenue for disputing treatment reasonableness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeLien ClaimantChiropractic ServicesLabor Code Section 4603.2(b)(2)PenaltiesSanctionsReasonable and Necessary Treatment
References
7
Case No. ADJ10168011
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

BELINDA GO vs. SUTTER SOLANO MEDICAL CENTER

This case involved an applicant who self-procured cervical spine surgery after her employer denied authorization, which was upheld by an Independent Medical Review. Despite the denial, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB affirmed that injured workers are entitled to temporary and permanent disability for reasonable, self-procured medical treatment, even if initially unauthorized. The Board found the self-procured surgery was reasonable due to its positive outcome, and the Permanent Qualified Medical Evaluator's findings supported the disability award. The WCAB clarified that utilization review and independent medical review processes do not preclude temporary disability indemnity for self-procured treatment deemed reasonable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUtilization Review (UR)Independent Medical Review (IMR)Self-Procured SurgeryTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent DisabilityPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Medical Treatment DisputesLabor Code Section 4600
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alexander A. v. Novello

Plaintiffs, children with psychiatric disabilities, filed a class action lawsuit against the Commissioners of the New York State Department of Health (DOH) and the Office of Mental Health (OMH). They alleged violations of the Medicaid Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming a failure to provide timely placement in Residential Treatment Facilities (RTFs). The plaintiffs sought class certification and partial summary judgment. The court granted class certification for "All New York State children with psychiatric disabilities who have been or will be found by defendants to be appropriate for placement in a Residential Treatment Facility and who have not been or will not be provided with such placement with reasonable promptness." However, the court denied the motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the definition of "reasonable promptness" in this context requires further inquiry, especially considering the complexities of matching children with appropriate RTFs and the state's ongoing efforts to develop alternative community-based services. The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for further settlement discussions and recommendations regarding the issue of "reasonable promptness" and the defendants' justifications for not increasing RTF bed capacity.

Mental health servicesChildren's healthMedicaid ActAmericans with Disabilities ActClass action lawsuitInjunctive reliefSummary judgmentResidential treatment facilitiesWaiting listsState government
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 6,137 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