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

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. ADJ6704425
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

MANUEL MENDOZA vs. RACKLEY COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision awarding permanent disability benefits to Manuel Mendoza. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found that the primary treating physician's opinion constituted substantial evidence, even if it differed from other medical opinions. The judge's decision to follow the treating physician's rating, which included consideration of a surgical scar and pain, was upheld. The Board noted that a single physician's relevant and considered opinion can be substantial evidence in workers' compensation cases.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedSubstantial EvidencePhysician OpinionAMA GuidesGuzman DecisionPermanent DisabilityPrimary Treating PhysicianPQMESurgical Scar
References
1
Case No. ADJ10518881
Regular
Mar 17, 2025

JOSE RAMIREZ vs. QUALITY SCALES UNLIMITED, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

Applicant Jose Ramirez sought reconsideration of a Findings and Awards (F&A) issued on December 17, 2024, which determined a 40% permanent disability (PD) rating, notably excluding any psychiatric component. Ramirez contended that this rating was inadequate, citing inconsistent PQME reports with higher PD ratings, unaddressed surgical scars, the omission of a psychiatric component despite claims of a catastrophic injury, and newly discovered evidence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, ruling that the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) initial decision lacked sufficient explanation for the PD rating and the catastrophic injury determination. Additionally, the WCAB found that the WCJ improperly relied on an inadmissible consultative rating determination. As a result, the WCAB amended the F&A to defer the issues of permanent disability impairment rating and attorney's fees, while otherwise affirming the WCJ's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardsPermanent DisabilityPQMEAMA GuidesCatastrophic InjuryPsychiatric ComponentLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2005

Claim of Cucci v. Rexer's Tang Soo Do Karate Academy

Claimant sustained a severe neck laceration in December 2001 while at work, resulting in a significant scar. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially denied an award for facial disfigurement, stating the scar was below the jaw. The Workers’ Compensation Board panel modified this, granting a $10,000 award, finding the scar fell within the compensable region under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (t) (2). The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the Board failed to address the impact of the disfigurement on claimant's present or future earning capacity, a statutory requirement for such an award. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, citing the absence of findings or inferences regarding impaired earning capacity.

Facial DisfigurementSerious DisfigurementEarning CapacityWorkers' Compensation Law § 15Scar InjuryAppellate ReviewRemittalStatutory InterpretationCompensable InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. ADJ3625409 (SAL 0119152)
Regular
Sep 21, 2009

GUADALUPE BENAVIDES vs. SALINAS VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior award. The WCJ incorrectly ruled that surgical knee replacement precluded apportionment of permanent disability. The Board found that Labor Code § 4663 requires apportionment based on causation, even if the contributing pathology is surgically removed. Therefore, the matter was returned for a new rating based on the QME's opinion that 75% of the applicant's permanent disability was due to pre-existing conditions.

ApportionmentPermanent DisabilityQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial InjuryNon-IndustrialPrevious InjuriesDegenerative ArthritisTotal Knee ReplacementLabor Code § 4663Causation
References
4
Case No. ADJ12305682
Regular
Apr 14, 2023

DAVID REED vs. CSR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves CSR Management Services and their insurer seeking reconsideration of a $71\%$ permanent disability award for David Reed. The defendants argued that the qualified medical evaluator, Dr. Brophy, did not sufficiently explain the applicant's scarring impairment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding Dr. Brophy adequately explained the scarring impairments as Class 1 under the AMA Guides. The Board noted that defendants could have sought further clarification from the evaluator.

CSR Management ServicesState Compensation Insurance FundADJ12305682Petition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings of FactAward and Orderconstruction laborerindustrial injuryupper extremitiesback
References
2
Case No. OAK 0314027
Regular
Jul 30, 2007

ANASTACIA MURELLA vs. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS / STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior order disallowing a lien claim from Bay Surgery Center (BSC) for surgical services. The Board found that the administrative law judge incorrectly applied the *Kunz* standard for evaluating outpatient surgical facility fees and that the issue of BSC's licensure and fictitious-name permit requirements needed further consideration. The case is remanded to the trial level for a new decision that properly addresses these issues, ensuring compliance with *Stokes* and *Kunz*.

KunzFictitious-name permitBurden of proofLien claimantMedical BoardAmbulatory surgical centerMedicare rateLicensed physicianAccreditationUsual fee
References
11
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. ADJ6512547
Regular
Sep 16, 2011

JUAN SANDOVAL vs. MILKY WAY DAIRY, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

This case concerns a dispute over a $8,177.09 balance owed to a lien claimant, Summit Surgical, for outpatient surgical services. The defendant sought reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Judge's award, arguing the lien claimant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary per *Kunz* and *Tapia*, and that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the WCJ failed to rule on the statute of limitations defense, which is a mandatory issue to address.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardWCJSummit SurgicalStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Reasonableness of Treatment
References
10
Case No. ANA 0331018
Regular
Apr 02, 2008

GREG BREWER vs. LEONARD'S CARPET SERVICE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration for lien claimants S&B Surgery Center and L.A. Regional Surgical Center, affirming the prior decision that they failed to meet their burden of proof. The claimants sought to introduce additional licensure documents on appeal, but the Board found no good cause to reopen the record as they had ample notice and opportunity to present this evidence at trial. Even if considered, S&B Surgery Center did not prove the reasonableness of its claimed fee, and L.A. Regional Surgical Center's claim was also denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantsBurden of proofLicensureAccreditationReconsiderationAugment the recordFictitious-name permitOutpatient settingReasonable fee
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 133 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