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. 23
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company v. Allied Capital Corporation

This case addresses whether an arbitration panel exceeded its authority by reconsidering a "Partial Final Award" in an insurance dispute. The underlying dispute involved Ciena Capital LLC and Allied Capital Corporation seeking coverage from American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) after settling a federal qui tam action. Initially, the arbitration panel issued a partial award, which was later reconsidered and corrected to grant both indemnification and defense costs. AISLIC challenged this reconsideration, arguing the panel was functus officio. The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division ruling, holding that the initial "Partial Final Award" was not truly final because the parties had not mutually agreed to its finality. Consequently, the arbitration panel was deemed to have acted within its authority by reconsidering its initial determination, and the petition to vacate the corrected award was denied.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardReconsiderationArbitrator AuthorityInsurance CoverageIndemnificationDefense CostsQui Tam ActionNew York Court of Appeals
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07194 [167 AD3d 142]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2018

American Intl. Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Allied Capital Corp.

This appeal concerns an arbitration dispute between American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) and Allied Capital Corporation regarding insurance coverage for a $10.1 million settlement. An arbitration panel initially issued a Partial Final Award (PFA) on liability but later reconsidered and reversed its decision, leading to a corrected PFA and a final award. AISLIC petitioned to vacate these subsequent awards and confirm the original PFA. The Appellate Division, First Department, ruled that the arbitration panel exceeded its authority under the functus officio doctrine by reconsidering its prior final determination on liability. Consequently, the corrected PFA and the final award were vacated, and the original PFA was reinstated.

ArbitrationFunctus OfficioPartial Final AwardVacaturInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewJurisdictionArbitrator AuthorityLiabilityDamages
References
32
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03519
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

Matter of Reyes Bonilla v. XL Specialty Ins.

Claimants Jose Reyes Bonilla and Marvin Reyes Bonilla, carpenters, were involved in a motor vehicle accident while commuting to a job site in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, in an employer-provided van. They filed workers' compensation claims, which were established against XL Specialty Insurance by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ). XL Specialty appealed, arguing its policy did not cover commuting injuries and that it was not the proper carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decisions, finding XL Specialty failed to preserve its challenge to being the carrier and that the employer's responsibility for transportation made the injuries compensable. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, agreeing that the issue was unpreserved and that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment due to the employer's control over the conveyance.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment InjuriesCommuting AccidentEmployer Provided TransportationWrap-up PolicyInsurance Coverage DisputeCarrier LiabilityIssue PreservationAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. ADJ752333
Regular
Jul 25, 2011

RICARDO RIVERA vs. COLOR SPOT NURSERIES, INC., CHARITIS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case concerns applicant's petition for reconsideration and removal of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) order denying his objection to a replacement orthopedic QME panel. The WCJ allowed the orthopedic panel after finding the defendant had substantially complied with regulations for requesting a specialty change. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the reconsideration petition as the order was interlocutory and denied removal, finding no irreparable harm or prejudice to the applicant. The WCAB upheld the WCJ's decision, deeming the change in specialty appropriate and the defendant's compliance sufficient under the circumstances.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical DirectorOrthopedicsChiropracticLabor CodeIndustrial InjuryLeft Knee
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Specialty Services, Inc.

Claimant, a construction foreman for Specialty Services, Inc., was injured while performing work for a church in Pennsylvania. Although Specialty filed a work-related accident report and its carrier began paying benefits, the carrier filed a notice of controversy over seven months after the Workers' Compensation Board indexed the case, exceeding the 25-day limit. The carrier argued that the late filing was due to surprise, mistake, and newly discovered evidence regarding the church's involvement, which claimant and Specialty allegedly failed to disclose. The Workers' Compensation Board refused to excuse the late filing, finding the carrier failed to demonstrate good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the carrier had ample time to investigate and that belatedly obtained evidence is not a sufficient ground to excuse a late filing.

Workers' CompensationLate Notice of ControversyTimely FilingEmployer-Employee RelationshipInsurance CarrierGood CausePleading BarAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. ADJ11446545
Regular
Dec 03, 2019

ROSA LOPEZ RODRIGUEZ vs. UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES SUPPLY COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case concerns a dispute over the appropriate medical specialty for a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The applicant, Rosa Lopez Rodriguez, initially requested a chiropractic QME panel, which was issued first. The defendant objected, arguing that chiropractic was inappropriate due to the applicant's prior surgery and lack of full recovery. The Medical Unit then invalidated the chiropractic panel and issued an orthopedic surgery panel. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning the WCJ's decision. The Board held that the party who first requests a QME panel has the right to designate the specialty and that the defendant failed to provide sufficient grounds to invalidate the chiropractic panel. Therefore, the Board amended the findings to sustain the applicant's objection and affirm chiropractic as the appropriate panel specialty.

AD Rule 31.5(a)(10)AD Rule 31.5(a)(9)AD Rule 31.1(b)Labor Code section 4062Labor Code section 4062.2Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)QME panel specialtyPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Unit determination
References
1
Case No. ADJ12347424
Regular
Nov 09, 2020

DANIELLE LOOMIS-LYONS vs. COUNTY OF MENDOCINO

This case concerns applicant Danielle Loomis-Lyons' injury to her right knee. The WCJ initially found injury AOE/COE, ordered a replacement QME panel in orthopedic surgery, and deemed the prior pain management QME report inadmissible. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the injury finding and the need for a replacement panel, but corrected the panel specialty to pain medicine. The Board rescinded findings regarding the appropriate panel specialty due to lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.

QME panelpain managementorthopedic surgeryAOE/COEinadmissible reportPetition for ReconsiderationremovalLabor Code section 4062.1AD Rule 31.3AD Rule 31.5
References
12
Case No. ADJ3155871
Regular
Sep 17, 2009

ANTO'NIO PAULO vs. SIENA IMPORTS, FIRST COMP OMAHA For ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over the specialty of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The applicant, Antonio Paulo, objected to the defendant's requested QME specialty, arguing the defendant failed to follow proper procedure by not providing supporting documentation for a specialty different from the treating physician's. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding the decision to void the initial panel. The Board found the applicant's objections were timely and the defendant had not demonstrated significant prejudice.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorPQME Panel SelectionMedical UnitWCAB JurisdictionSpecialty DisputePain ManagementSpinePrimary Treating Physician8 CCR 31.1
References
0
Case No. ADJ11745461
Regular
Dec 11, 2019

ANTONIO VIRRUETA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a dispute over the appropriate medical specialty for evaluating an applicant's claimed bilateral knee injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision, holding that the defendant's petition challenging the WCJ's determination on QME panel specialty was subject to the removal standard, not reconsideration. The majority found that while the employment relationship finding was final, the challenge to the panel specialty was an interlocutory issue. They concluded that removal was not warranted as the defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)QME Panel SpecialtyMedical DirectorOrthopedic SurgeonChiropractor
References
9
Case No. ADJ9178558 ADJ9178559
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

JAVIER RIVERA vs. JACO ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by Zurich American Insurance Company concerning a dispute over Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel selection. The administrative law judge had found both parties requested QME panels timely, but ruled the defendant's request invalid for seeking a different specialty without justification. The Board agreed that removal was not warranted and upheld the decision to assign a QME in pain management, the same specialty as the primary treating physician. The Board also clarified the interpretation of Rule 31.1(b), emphasizing the requirement for supporting documentation when requesting a QME in a different specialty.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panelprimary treating physicianspecialtypain managementMedical Directortimely requestjustificationRule 31.1(b)extraordinary remedy
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,097 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