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. ADJ11629114
Regular
Sep 16, 2022

KATHLEEN PHILLIPS vs. SHORENSTEIN HAYS-NEDERLANDER THEATRES, LLC, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and modified a prior decision concerning applicant Kathleen Phillips' industrial hip injury. While affirming the finding that the Qualified Medical Examiner's (PQME) reports lacked substantial medical evidence, the WCAB rescinded the striking of those reports and the PQME's disqualification. The WCAB reasoned that striking reports and disqualifying a PQME requires specific legal grounds not present here, and the determination of substantiality relates to the weight of evidence, not admissibility. The WCAB emphasized that the PQME's reports remain part of the record, with the judge retaining discretion to assign them appropriate weight.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderQualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Substantial Medical EvidenceRemoval StandardThreshold IssueInterlocutory FindingAdmissibility of EvidencePrejudiced
References
5
Case No. ADJ1029045 (LAO 0790607)
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

ELVIRA CABRAL vs. ACCURIDE INTERNATIONAL, INC., SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the administrative law judge's (WCJ) order striking Dr. Windler's reports was an evidentiary ruling, not a final order dispositive of substantive rights. The WCAB also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for this extraordinary remedy. The WCAB concluded the WCJ's report sufficiently explained the bases for striking the reports, curing any technical defect regarding Labor Code section 5313. Therefore, the applicant's request to overturn the ruling on Dr. Windler's reports was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalsubstantial evidenceDr. Windler's reportsstricken from the recordnon-industrial personal injuryLabor Code section 5313final orderadmissibility of evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ1732179 (LBO 0394128)
Regular
Feb 15, 2011

LISA WLADKOWSKI vs. BALL METAL CONTAINER CORP.; DISCOVERY MANAGERS, administered by SPECIALITY RISK SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, the Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order that struck a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) report due to an allegedly excessive deposition fee. However, the Board granted the defendant's alternative petition for removal. The Board found no legal basis to strike a QME's report solely because their deposition fee exceeds the presumptive statutory rate. Consequently, the original order striking the report was rescinded, and the matter was returned for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEdeposition testimonyexcessive feemedical legal fee schedulestriking medical reportpetition for reconsiderationpetition for removalevidentiary order
References
5
Case No. ADJ8975338
Regular
Jun 21, 2017

Kevin Livingstone vs. ATI, American Insurance Company, ESIS

This case involves a defendant's attempt to strike a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) report and obtain a replacement due to a 7-day delay in a supplemental report. The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration because the initial WCJ's order denying the strike was not a final order subject to reconsideration. The Board further denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no irreparable harm. The ruling clarifies that only an untimely initial QME evaluation mandates replacement, whereas a late supplemental report is within the WCJ's discretion to address based on good cause.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQMESupplemental ReportTimelinessFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderAdministrative Director
References
14
Case No. ADJ7 170139; ADJ7176930
Regular
Mar 24, 2016

ROBERT GAONA vs. CAPITAL BUILDERS HARDWARE, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior grant of reconsideration and denied the defendant's petition for removal and reconsideration. The defendant sought to strike the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) psychiatric report due to the applicant allegedly violating Labor Code section 4062.3 by sending a consulting physician's report to the AME without prior agreement. However, the WCAB found that the defendant waived this objection by later submitting both the consulting physician's and the AME's reports to an orthopedic AME for comment. Therefore, the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's denial of the defendant's petition to strike and request for costs and sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Joint Findings and OrdersLabor Code Section 4062.3Consulting PhysicianTainted OpinionPetition for Costs and SanctionsPetition to Strike
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01696 [159 AD3d 1215]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2018

Matter of Parron (Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Louis B. Parron, a central office technician for Verizon, was denied unemployment insurance benefits after refusing to report to an alternate work location during a union strike. Despite his union initiating a strike, the employer provided consolidated work sites and travel allowances, which Parron refused, insisting on reporting to his closed original location. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the denial of benefits, finding that Parron's benefits were properly suspended under Labor Law § 592 (1) as he ceased working due to a strike and not a lockout by the employer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the suspension of benefits.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsStrikeIndustrial ControversyAlternate Work SiteRefusal to WorkLabor Law § 592(1)Denial of BenefitsAppellate Division Third DepartmentTelecommunications Company
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claims of Noss

Claimants, employees of Lawrence Aviation Industries, Inc. and union members, commenced a strike in 1984. During the strike, they received weekly strike benefits from their union and later unemployment insurance benefits. The employer challenged these benefits, arguing that strike benefits were contingent on performing union duties, making claimants not 'totally unemployed,' and alleged willful misrepresentation. Both the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that the strike benefits were not conditional and no misrepresentation occurred. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that strike benefits not conditioned on services are not considered remuneration under 12 NYCRR 490.2 (b) and that the Board's factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, should not be disturbed.

Unemployment BenefitsStrike BenefitsTotal UnemploymentWillful MisrepresentationLabor UnionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceConditional PaymentsNew York Labor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 1977

Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 922

This case involves an appeal from a judgment that enjoined unions representing employees of the Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority (SIRTOA) from striking. SIRTOA, a public benefit corporation operating a commuter rail line in New York, argued that its employees, as public employees, are prohibited from striking under the New York State Taylor Law. The defendant unions contended they were governed by the federal Railway Labor Act, which permits strikes. The court affirmed the injunction, determining that SIRTOA's minimal connection to interstate commerce, primarily a single daily freight run, was outweighed by the State's compelling interest in preventing public employee strikes and ensuring essential commuter rail service for Staten Island residents.

Strike InjunctionPublic EmployeesRailway Labor ActTaylor LawInterstate CommerceState SovereigntyCommuter RailCollective BargainingNew York State LawFederal Preemption
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1965

Rivera v. Hellman

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 5,451 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