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. ADJ736188 (GOL 0099658)
Regular
Sep 22, 2017

Deanna Power vs. St. John's Regional Medical Center, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns Deanna Power's claim for continued medical treatment, specifically prescription medications Xyrem and Lunesta, for a previous industrial injury. The employer denied authorization for these medications through Utilization Review (UR), and the applicant's subsequent Independent Medical Review (IMR) application was deemed untimely. The trial judge initially ordered continued treatment and directed the Administrative Director to process the IMR appeal, finding it timely. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to order treatment when a timely UR decision was issued and the applicant's sole recourse was the IMR process. The matter was returned to the trial level for a determination solely on the timeliness of the IMR appeal, not the medical necessity of the medications.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardXyremLunestaIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewURprescription medications
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center

Eulalia Perez was admitted to Brookdale University Hospital on November 16, 2010, and treated for various medical conditions before being discharged on December 7. She died two days later. Her family, Ivan and Irma Perez, sued Brookdale and other defendants, alleging a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and state-law claims of wrongful death and negligence. The court granted Brookdale's motion for summary judgment on the EMTALA claim, determining that the hospital fulfilled its EMTALA duties once Mrs. Perez was stabilized, and any subsequent issues were outside the statute's scope. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, leading to the dismissal of all claims against all parties.

EMTALAEmergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor ActMedical MalpracticeNegligenceWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentSupplemental JurisdictionPatient DumpingHospital DischargeFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

A claimant sustained a work-related back injury and sought continued medical treatment, which was initially authorized. Disputes over authorization led the claimant to retain an attorney. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge authorized continued medical treatment but denied counsel fees, stating no "money passing" occurred. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board unconstitutionally applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, misinterpreted the statute regarding fee payment from medical benefits, and abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees must be paid from "compensation," defined as a money allowance, and medical benefits are not considered "compensation" for this purpose, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. ADJ9445538
Regular
Oct 05, 2017

WENDY LEUNG vs. HUNTINGTON MEDICAL FOUNDATION, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFIT TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Wendy Leung's petition for reconsideration of the administrative law judge's decision. The judge found no substantial medical evidence to support a subsequent compensable industrial permanent disability claim sufficient for benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust Fund (SIBTF). Leung contended she met SIBTF eligibility by claiming a prior $43\%$ permanent disability, a subsequent injury, and a resulting combined disability exceeding $70\%$. However, the Board agreed that Leung failed to prove industrial causation for her subsequent injury with reasonable medical probability.

Subsequent Injuries Benefit Trust FundLabor Code Section 4751cumulative injurypermanent disabilityreasonable medical probabilityindustrial causationapportionmentQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 1985

Blythe v. City of New York

The case involves an appeal by plaintiffs from an order granting summary judgment to defendants in a medical malpractice action. The infant plaintiff developed a seizure disorder after injections at a Department of Health Clinic, leading to subsequent treatments at various hospitals, including Kings County Hospital. The plaintiffs filed a notice of claim in March 1981, alleging continuous treatment by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). However, the Supreme Court, Kings County, found a 19-month hiatus in treatment between Kings County Hospital and Queens Hospital, ruling that the continuous treatment doctrine did not apply. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that the notice of claim was untimely and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly granted.

Medical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentContinuous Treatment DoctrineStatute of LimitationsNotice of ClaimKings CountyAppellate DivisionHospital NegligenceInfant InjurySeizure Disorder
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2013

Matter of Madigan v. ARR ELS

In 1994, the claimant sustained a low back injury during employment as a machinist, leading to workers' compensation benefits. Liability for the case was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2003. Due to poor surgical outcomes, the claimant has been on pain medication, including oxycontin, since at least 2007, with doses escalating. A consultant for the Special Fund questioned the necessity of the increased medication, prompting a hearing. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ruled that the pain medications should continue, with the Special Fund covering the costs, until new Board guidelines or physician recommendations advised otherwise. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, citing that their Medical Treatment Guidelines for chronic pain were still in draft form at the time. The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the guidelines were not yet in effect at the time of the Board's ruling and that the Board's interim guidance was rational.

Workers' CompensationPain ManagementOpioid PrescriptionsMedical Treatment GuidelinesSpecial FundReopened CasesLumbar InjuryOxycontinAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2003

Crosson v. Jamaica Hospital Medical Center

The plaintiff, an employee of Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, sustained a needle stick injury at work and subsequently alleged negligence by a phlebotomist while receiving a blood test at the Hospital's emergency room. After obtaining workers' compensation benefits for her injuries, the plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice action against the Hospital. The Hospital moved for summary judgment, asserting that Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) provided the exclusive remedy, a motion which the trial court granted. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Queens County, affirmed this decision, concluding that because the medical treatment was sought and arranged as a direct result of a work-related incident and was part of the Hospital's protocol for injured employees, the Workers' Compensation Law indeed constituted the plaintiff's sole available remedy.

Medical MalpracticeExclusive Remedy DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate AffirmationEmployer LiabilityEmergency Room NegligenceWork-Related InjuryWorkers' Compensation PreclusionJudicial ReviewHospital Protocol
References
2
Case No. ADJ551158 (MON 0363400)
Regular
Jul 09, 2010

HELEN B. JAKES, HELEN JAKES ELAM vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CIM, Legally Uninsured

This case involves the State of California and the Department of Corrections seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board found the employer failed to properly notify the employee of its Medical Provider Network (MPN), making them liable for self-procured medical treatment. However, the Board reversed this, finding that subsequent notices from the employer did sufficiently inform the employee about the MPN. Therefore, the employee is now required to seek treatment within the employer's MPN, and the employer is not liable for self-procured treatment after the date of the subsequent notice.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentNotice RequirementsLabor Code Section 4616.3Administrative Director's Rule 9767.12(a)Due ProcessJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationReturn to Work Coordinator
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lutheran Medical Center v. Hereford Insurance

Maher Kiswani, a livery car driver, was injured in an automobile accident and received medical treatment from Lutheran Medical Center. Lutheran, as Kiswani's assignee, sought payment from Hereford Insurance Company, the no-fault carrier, which refused to pay. After an initial arbitration where the Workers' Compensation Board determined Kiswani was not injured in the course of employment (without Hereford's notice), a second arbitration awarded Lutheran no-fault benefits. The Supreme Court, Kings County, vacated this arbitration award, ruling that Hereford should have been notified of the Workers' Compensation Board hearing. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that a party not afforded an opportunity to participate in a Board hearing is not bound by its determination.

Arbitration AwardNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BoardDue ProcessNotice RequirementsVacated Arbitration AwardAppellate ReviewLivery Car DriverAutomobile AccidentMedical Benefits
References
3
Case No. ADJ10550274
Regular
Mar 24, 2023

MEENA CHANDOK vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) sought reconsideration of a prior award finding the applicant permanently totally disabled due to a subsequent industrial injury combined with pre-existing disabilities. SIBTF argued that an elective tubal ligation and pre-existing cervical and thoracic spine impairments were improperly rated. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, finding that the tubal ligation constituted a ratable impairment under the AMA Guides, and evidence of prior treatment for the spinal conditions predated the industrial injury. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ), who found no legal basis to exclude an elective surgery from impairment rating and that SIBTF failed to rebut the applicant's medical evidence.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundPre-existing disabilityRatable impairmentElective tubal ligationCervical spineThoracic spineAMA GuidesLabor Code section 4751FergusonProphylactic work restriction
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 12,082 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