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. ADJ2103407 (SAC 0365860)
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

, LOUDES HERNANDEZ, vs. , ARDEN FAIR CLEANERS; STATE FARM 21567 BAKERSFIELD,

This case involves an applicant seeking removal and reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The original findings awarded an industrial injury to the applicant's left cheek and brachium but denied a spinal cord stimulator trial. The applicant argued the WCJ erred by denying the trial, disputing body part acceptance procedures, and not giving equal weight to medical reports. The WCAB denied both petitions, adopting the WCJ's report and reasoning. They found the initial award was a final order and that reconsideration was the proper avenue, not removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardSpinal Cord Stimulator TrialComplex Regional Pain SyndromePanel QMETreating Doctors' ReportsSubstantive RightLiability
References
3
Case No. ADJ9863651
Regular
Sep 06, 2016

RION NAUS vs. CENTRAL COAST VILLAGE CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCJ found the applicant required a spinal cord stimulator trial and that the defendant unreasonably delayed treatment. The defendant argued a prior Utilization Review (UR) and Independent Medical Review (IMR) denial was binding. However, the defendant failed to submit a subsequent Request for Authorization (RFA) with new medical information to UR. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the defendant's failure to seek a new UR was unreasonable and allowed for the treatment, penalty, and attorney fees.

Utilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewSpinal Cord Stimulator TrialLabor Code Section 5814Unreasonable DelayRequest For AuthorizationFindings Of FactPetition For ReconsiderationMedical TreatmentPsychological Evaluation
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00608 [191 AD3d 1078]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Peck v. The Donaldson Org.

Harry Peck, a carpenter, sustained a work-related back injury in 2013 and received workers' compensation benefits. After spinal fusion surgery, he was deemed medically unable to return to work. Following authorization for a spinal cord simulator trial in 2018, the employer's carrier alleged that Peck violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, citing surveillance footage inconsistent with his claimed disability. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found no misrepresentation, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding a violation and imposing mandatory and discretionary penalties, including disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Peck made willful misrepresentations regarding the extent of his disability to physicians.

Workers' Compensation FraudDisability MisrepresentationSurveillance EvidencePenalty ImpositionWage Replacement DisqualificationSpinal Cord InjuryBack PainClaimant CredibilityAppellate Review of Board DecisionMaterial False Statement
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Spinal Ass'n v. Board of Elections in the City of New York

Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action brought an action against the Board of Elections in the City of New York (BOE) under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging pervasive access barriers at poll sites. The Court previously denied a preliminary injunction. Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment. The Court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of pervasive and recurring accessibility barriers and deemed the BOE's accommodation methods insufficient. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendants' cross-motion. The case is now referred to a Magistrate Judge for the determination of the appropriate remedy.

AccessibilityVoting RightsAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActPoll SitesSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationBoard of ElectionsMeaningful AccessReasonable Accommodation
References
26
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jo v. JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC

Mee Jin-Jo (now deceased and represented by her daughter Billian Jo) filed a pro se lawsuit against JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC, alleging improper retention of property after her eviction. Following a jury verdict of "no cause of action," Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court addressed Plaintiff's grievances concerning evidentiary rulings, consistency between in limine rulings and trial decisions, the presence of a corporate representative, proper service of discovery documents, opportunity to review deposition transcripts, judicial conduct, and the admissibility of new evidence and lay opinion testimony. The Court denied the motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a new trial was warranted.

Motion for New TrialRule 59 FRCPEvidentiary RulingsJury VerdictHarmless ErrorCorporate RepresentativeDeposition TranscriptLay Opinion TestimonyFederal Rules of EvidenceJudicial Discretion
References
50
Case No. ADJ2661083 (AHM 0097587) ADJ2316310 (AHM 0088976)
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

GENEEN RODRIGUEZ vs. STATEK CORPORATION, ACE USA

This case involves defendant Statek Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an award granting applicant Geneen Rodriguez a spinal cord stimulator. The Administrative Law Judge found the utilization review (UR) determination materially defective due to communication issues and the reviewer's specialty. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and found the UR determination was not materially defective. The Board concluded that any alleged defects were not significant enough to bypass the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process.

Utilization ReviewSpinal Cord StimulatorMaterially DefectiveIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Medical NecessityCompetency of ReviewerInternal MedicineTimely CommunicationDubon v. World Restoration
References
2
Case No. ADJ369598 (OAK 0301691)
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ALLEN AMES vs. COINMACH LAUNDRY, ARROWHEAD INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the WCJ's award of medical treatment based on untimely utilization review (UR) and a previous case. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision due to a dispute over the timeliness of the UR denial, returning the matter for further development of the record on that specific issue. However, the Board did award a left-sided rhizotomy based on the parties' stipulation, as the applicant had not yet obtained the authorized treatment. The issue of a spinal cord stimulator was deferred as the authorization request was made post-hearing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderUtilization ReviewTimelinessRequests for AuthorizationMedical TreatmentSpinal Cord StimulatorRhizotomyLabor Code
References
7
Case No. ADJ4016735 (BAK 0147536)
Regular
Jun 11, 2012

COLLEEN PARHAM vs. KERN RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, LEGION INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves an applicant seeking bilateral knee replacement surgery due to an admitted industrial back injury. The applicant argues the surgery is necessary to enable further treatment for her back, specifically a spinal cord stimulator. The defendants contested this, claiming the knee condition was independent and unrelated to the industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the knee surgery reasonably required to relieve the industrial back injury, citing *Bolton* and *Rowan*, even if the knee condition itself was not industrial. The Board rescinded prior findings, awarding the knee surgery and deferring issues of permanent disability and temporary disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactBilateral Knee ReplacementIndustrial InjuryBack InjurySpinal Cord StimulatorTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical Evaluator
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,512 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