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
Jun 30, 2010

John Giugliano, DC, P.C. v. Merchants Mutual Insurance

Plaintiff John Giugliano, DC, EC., as assignee of Laura Hebenstreit, initiated this action to recover first party no-fault benefits from defendant Merchants Mutual Ins. Co. The core dispute, following a trial on June 30, 2010, centered on the plaintiff's billing practices under the New York Workers' Compensation Medical Fee Schedule, specifically regarding the use of surgical CPT codes for chiropractic procedures. Defendant argued against the use of surgical codes and duplicate billing for a specific CPT code, while plaintiff maintained these practices were justified because the procedures were not listed under the chiropractic fee schedule and involved distinct treatment areas. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the procedures were properly billed according to the Fee Schedule, thereby entitling the plaintiff to reimbursement.

No-Fault BenefitsChiropractic BillingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleCPT CodesSurgical ProceduresCo-Surgeon BillingInsurance ReimbursementMedical Fee Schedule DisputesSpinal ManipulationMandibular Fracture
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liebman v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance

A physician, acting as plaintiff, brought a jury trial action against an insurance company, the defendant, under the New York State No-Fault Law to recover fees for surgical procedures and subsequent hospital visits, as well as attorneys' fees. The core dispute revolved around whether certain surgical procedures (arthroscopy, arthrotomy, excision of torn medial meniscus) were separate and distinct for billing purposes, and if post-operative hospital visits constituted reimbursable care or included follow-up care under the Workers’ Compensation Board medical fee schedule. The jury found arthroscopy and arthrotomy to be separate procedures, but arthrotomy and excision were not. They also determined the hospital visits were follow-up care. The court, finding the issues novel and unique, awarded the plaintiff $4,425 plus interest in attorneys' fees, exceeding the statutory maximum.

No-Fault LawInsurance ClaimMedical Billing DisputeAttorneys' FeesJury TrialSurgical ProceduresWorkers' Compensation ScheduleNovel and Unique IssuesOrthopedic SurgeryArthroscopy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Surgicare Surgical v. National Interstate Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer complies with New York's 11 NYCRR 68.6 regulation by reimbursing for out-of-state medical services according to the host state's (New Jersey's) no-fault fee schedule. Plaintiff Surgicare Surgical, assignee of an injured party, sought full payment for surgery performed in New Jersey, but defendant National Interstate Insurance Company paid a reduced amount based on New Jersey's fee schedule. The court affirmed the defendant's method, ruling that when medical services are rendered in another jurisdiction with its own fee schedule, the 'permissible' charge under that schedule constitutes the 'prevailing fee' under New York's regulation. The decision emphasized alignment with legislative intent to contain no-fault insurance costs and reduce judicial burden, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and denying its cross-motion.

No-Fault BenefitsInsurance LawFee Schedule DisputeOut-of-State Medical ServicesNew York RegulationsNew Jersey Fee ScheduleStatutory InterpretationAutomobile AccidentReimbursement DisputeSummary Judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saks v. Franklin Covey Co.

Rochelle Saks, an employee of Franklin Covey, sued her employer and its health benefits plan administrator for denying coverage for surgical impregnation procedures for her infertility treatment. Saks claimed the denial violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and the New York Human Rights Law, also alleging breach of contract. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Saks' complaint. The court found that Franklin Covey's insurance plan, which applied equally to all employees and excluded specific procedures including surgical impregnation, did not violate the ADA or Title VII. Furthermore, while infertility could be considered a pregnancy-related condition under the PDA, the plan's uniform exclusions still did not constitute discrimination. Finally, Saks' state law claims were preempted by ERISA.

Infertility TreatmentHealth Benefits PlanEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationERISA PreemptionSummary JudgmentSelf-funded InsuranceSurgical Procedures ExclusionMedical Necessity Definition
References
24
Case No. ADJ7184361
Regular
Jan 17, 2012

MUNSAMI NAIKER vs. NCR CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding applicant sustained industrial injuries and entitled to spinal surgery by Dr. Nottingham. Defendant argued the WCJ improperly designated Dr. Nottingham as a "Section 4062(b) evaluator" and that his surgical request violated procedural regulations. The Board, adopting the WCJ's report, rescinded the prior award and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This allows for clarification on Dr. Nottingham's role and the validity of his surgical recommendation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMunsami NaikerNCR CorporationAce American InsuranceFindings Award and Orderindustrial injuryback injuryinternal system injurypsyche injuryengineer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Samuel J. Roth, M. D., P. C. v. Hanover Insurance

This case involves a plastic surgeon (plaintiff) who provided surgical treatment to an auto accident victim and sought direct payment from the defendant (insurer) under section 678 of the Insurance Law. The plaintiff billed for various procedures, including 'Advance Flap Closure,' but the defendant disallowed a portion of the bill, citing the 'Schedule of Medical Fees' from the Workers' Compensation Board which limits payments. The plaintiff argued for an excess charge due to the unique procedures and high quality of service. However, the court denied the plaintiff's claim, affirming that health providers are professionally bound to furnish their best service without requiring bonus payments and that the fee schedule was not irrational or unreasonable. The court thus granted judgment in favor of the defendant.

No-fault insuranceMedical billing disputeFee scheduleWorkers' Compensation BoardInsurance LawPlastic surgeryAdvance Flap ClosureSurgical proceduresMedical feesPublic policy
References
3
Case No. 222 AD3d 1134
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Allen v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Claimant Odaliris Allen appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which ruled that Workers' Compensation Law § 123 precluded an award of additional indemnity benefits. Allen sustained a work-related injury in 2000, and liability later transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. Despite subsequent amendments to her claim to include consequential ankle injuries and authorization for a surgical procedure, the Board affirmed that more than 18 years had passed since the injury and eight years since the last compensation payment, thus barring further awards. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the case was truly closed after a 2019 Workers' Compensation Law Judge decision and subsequent surgical authorization, making Workers' Compensation Law § 123 applicable.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial FundReopened CasesIndemnity BenefitsSchedule Loss of UseStatute of LimitationsAppellate DivisionCase ClosureInjury ClaimsAnkle Injury
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council of City v. Department of Homeless Services

The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) implemented a new Eligibility Procedure for Temporary Housing Assistance (THA) applicants. The Council of the City of New York (City Council) filed a declaratory judgment action, asserting DHS failed to comply with the notice and hearing requirements of the New York City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA). The court affirmed lower court rulings, determining that DHS's procedure constitutes a 'rule' under CAPA, requiring public notice and hearings. The court rejected DHS's arguments that the procedure involved sufficient discretion or fell under an exemption, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the procedure and its substantial impact on eligibility determinations. Consequently, the Eligibility Procedure is unenforceable until DHS adheres to CAPA's procedural mandates.

Administrative LawRulemakingDeclaratory JudgmentHomeless ServicesTemporary Housing AssistanceNew York City CharterCAPASAPAAgency DiscretionProcedural Requirements
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Spyhalsky v. Cross Construction

This case of first impression examines whether Workers' Compensation Law § 13 (a) mandates a workers’ compensation carrier to cover sperm extraction and intrauterine insemination for an injured worker who cannot procreate due to a causally related injury. The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1995, leading to surgery and consequential retrograde ejaculation. When conservative treatments failed, his urologists recommended artificial insemination to achieve pregnancy. The Workers’ Compensation Board authorized these procedures, ruling that the inability to naturally father a child constituted a compensable injury requiring treatment. The court affirmed this decision, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of the Workers' Compensation Law to meet its humanitarian objectives and asserting that coverage for restoring lost bodily functions extends to procreative capabilities.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical Treatment CoverageRetrograde EjaculationIntrauterine InseminationProcreation RightsCompensable InjuryBodily Function LossStatutory InterpretationSperm ExtractionMedical Necessity
References
14
Case No. ADJ9724977
Regular
Mar 17, 2017

STACEE BARBATO vs. FRESNO HEART SURGICAL HOSPITAL, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both Stacee Barbato's petition for reconsideration and petition for removal. The Board found the underlying decision was not "final" as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. Furthermore, even if treated as a removal petition, it was dismissed as untimely, having been filed after the statutory deadline. The Board adopted the judge's report and would have denied the petition on the merits if it had been timely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionTimeliness
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,550 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