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

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. ADJ9027080, ADJ7299336, ADJ8027597
Regular
Jun 10, 2025

JAMES HUNTER vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

Applicant James Hunter sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order that found him ineligible for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) adopted the WCJ's Report and Recommendation, affirming that Hunter's September 30, 2010 subsequent lumbar spine injury, settled at 10% permanent disability, did not meet the 35% SIBTF eligibility threshold. The WCAB denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's reliance on the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports over applicant's attempt to re-characterize the injury as a cumulative trauma.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJLabor Code section 5909EAMSApportionmentPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
14
Case No. ADJ7348607
Regular
Oct 04, 2013

James Clark vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves James Clark's petition for reconsideration of a decision regarding Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) liability. The WCJ found that Clark sustained a 13% permanent disability from a 2009 work injury, which, when combined with prior permanent disabilities from other injuries, resulted in a 70% total permanent disability. Clark argued for 100% permanent disability based on prior medical reports and a vocational expert's opinion. The Board denied reconsideration, finding that the prior medical reports indicated overlapping disabilities, precluding simple addition of individual award percentages. The Board also noted that Social Security Administration determinations are not determinative for workers' compensation, and there was no ratable medical opinion for Clark's sleep or vision conditions.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityOverlapping DisabilityQualified Medical ExaminerQMEVocational ExpertWork PreclusionCategory B
References
3
Case No. ADJ1787355 (SAC 0336410) ADJ1318220 (SAC 0338049)
Regular
Aug 06, 2012

MARY JANE EIDMAN vs. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS PLUMB, PARADISE CHEVROLET, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund's (SIF) petition for reconsideration, affirming the finding of total permanent disability due to a prior condition combined with a later industrial injury. The Board granted the applicant's petition, reversing the original decision to make the applicant personally liable for a medical-legal report. SIF is now liable for the reasonable cost of Dr. Abeliuk's report, which is deemed a necessary medical-legal expense for the applicant's claim. The case was returned for further proceedings to determine the cost of Dr. Abeliuk's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fundpermanent disabilitymedical-legal expensereconsiderationadministrative law judgesubstantial medical evidencequalified injured workermedical reportingliability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malburg v. Keller

Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action following a motor vehicle accident. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury under Insurance Law § 5102 (d), and the Supreme Court granted this motion, dismissing the amended complaint. On appeal, the court modified the order by denying the motion in part. It reinstated the amended complaint concerning the significant limitation of use category of serious injury for the plaintiff's cervical spine injury. This modification was based on an independent medical examination report establishing a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentSummary JudgmentSerious InjuryInsurance LawCervical Spine InjuryRange of MotionIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation
References
1
Case No. ADJ7699696
Regular
Apr 06, 2020

George Ramirez, Jr vs. Preston Pipelines, Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

This case concerns the applicant's claim for Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) benefits, which was initially denied by the WCJ who excluded Dr. Chen's medical reports as inadmissible "doctor shopping." The applicant appealed, arguing Dr. Chen's reports were admissible and not duplicative of Dr. Lockwood's initial, incomplete report. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior order, finding the applicant should not be denied benefits solely due to the exclusion of Dr. Chen's reports, and returned the matter to the trial level to allow the applicant to obtain supplemental reporting from Dr. Lockwood to address his SIBTF eligibility.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFLabor Code section 4751inadmissible evidencedoctor shoppingQME evaluationsLabor Code section 5703examining physiciancumulative traumaCompromise and Release
References
1
Case No. ADJ2651648 (MON 0342704)
Regular
Jul 18, 2017

TERESA SANCHEZ vs. HAWTHORNE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) sought reconsideration of an award granting applicant benefits for a 2006 industrial injury, arguing the prior disability rating was insufficient. The applicant had two industrial injuries: a 1997-2002 cumulative trauma and the 2006 specific injury, both causing fibromyalgia. The WCJ found the combined disability from both injuries exceeded the threshold for SIBTF benefits, based on her primary treating physician's rating. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, adopting the judge's report which found the applicant met the criteria for SIBTF benefits, and denied the SIBTF's petition.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFcumulative traumacompensable consequencefibromyalgiapermanent and stationaryAgreed Medical ExaminerAMA Guides1997 rating scheduleprimary treating physician
References
0
Case No. ADJ3953602 (SRO 0260827) ADJ2646453 (SRO 0133845)
Regular
Nov 14, 2012

ROBERTO HERNANDEZ vs. MILL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) seeks reconsideration of an award finding the applicant totally permanently disabled due to industrial injuries sustained in 2004. The WCJ found the combined injuries greater than 70% and the second injury itself greater than 35%, entitling the applicant to SIBTF benefits. SIBTF argues the applicant's disability is solely due to the subsequent injury, thus disqualifying them from SIBTF benefits. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the admissibility of two vocational reports and deposition transcripts, Exhibits M and N, which were previously marked for identification only. The Board intends to receive these documents into evidence unless timely objections are filed.

SIBTFPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryVocational Rehabilitation EvaluationDiminished Future Earning CapacityDeposition TranscriptExhibits M and NWCJ Report
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaplin v. Pathmark Supermarkets

This case addresses a motion by defendants, including Supermarkets General Corp., for a protective order to vacate the plaintiff Mimi Chaplin's notice for discovery and inspection of accident reports. Mimi Chaplin sought these reports after sustaining personal injuries from a fall at the defendant's premises. The court, presided over by Justice James F. Niehoff, analyzed the newly enacted CPLR 3101 (g), which mandates full disclosure of accident reports prepared in the regular course of business. The court found that the accident report in question was prepared in Supermarkets General Corp.'s regular course of business, rendering it discoverable regardless of its potential use in litigation, thus denying the defendants' motion.

DiscoveryProtective OrderAccident ReportsCPLR 3101(g)Litigation PreparationRegular Course of BusinessPersonal InjuryNegligenceDisclosureEvidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cook-Schoonover v. Corning Hospital

Claimant, an employee at Corning Hospital, suffered psychological injuries due to a verbally harassing work environment from coworkers Lori Glass and Michelle Lewis, leading to hospitalizations and a diagnosis of anxiety attacks, panic disorder, and depression. She filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were initially dismissed by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but later found compensable by the Workers’ Compensation Board, supported by medical reports from Frank Bourke, Michael Cilip, and Albert Wolkoff. The employer and carrier appealed, alleging due process violations, but the court found no record of these requests. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence from claimant's testimony and medical reports, and emphasized that psychic injury can result from extended emotional stress and pre-existing vulnerability does not preclude benefits.

work-related stresspsychological injuryhostile work environmentverbal harassmentpanic disorderdepressionworkers' compensation benefitsmedical evidencewitness credibilitydue process
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 15,747 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