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

Abreo v. URS Greiner Woodward Clyde

A plaintiff sustained personal injuries while working on a scaffold during a renovation project, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Defendants Colgate Scaffolding and URS Greiner Woodward Clyde (now URS Corporation-New York), the alleged general contractor and scaffolding provider, respectively, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court denied their motions in part. On appeal, the denial of summary judgment for URS concerning Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims was affirmed, as triable issues of fact existed and the cited Industrial Code provisions were deemed specific. Colgate's appeal from one order was dismissed as they were not aggrieved, and their motion for summary judgment was also found to lack a prima facie case. The plaintiff was awarded costs.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionConstruction AccidentElevation-Related RiskIndustrial Code ViolationsNegligenceWorkers' Safety
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Paragon Process Service, Inc.

Paragon Process Service, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which held the company responsible for unemployment insurance contributions for its process servers from 1978 to 1980. Paragon contended that these process servers were independent contractors, not employees, over whom it exercised no control beyond legal requirements. The court, referencing precedents like *Matter of 12 Cornelia St. (Ross)*, determined that the Board lacked a rational basis for classifying the process servers as employees. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision. The matter was then remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings consistent with this new finding.

Unemployment insuranceIndependent contractorProcess serversEmployer liabilityEmployee classificationAppellate reviewAdministrative decisionRational basis reviewLabor lawNew York law
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00941 [202 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Locke v. URS Architecture & Eng'g-N.Y., P.C.

Plaintiff Michael Locke sustained injuries after slipping on soapy water in a designated restroom at a construction site managed by URS. Locke had repeatedly notified URS of an overflowing sink causing water to pool, but URS attributed responsibility to prime general contractor Tri-Rail. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on common-law negligence and Labor Law claims against URS, while denying URS's motion to dismiss and for contractual indemnification against Tri-Rail, and denying Crescent's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Crescent and granting URS conditional contractual indemnification against Tri-Rail, pending liability apportionment. The court found URS liable under Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200 due to its control over the injury-producing activity and notice of the dangerous condition.

Workers' CompensationConstruction Site AccidentSlip and FallPremises LiabilityLabor Law §200Labor Law §241(6)Industrial Code ViolationSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law Negligence
References
9
Case No. ADJ7656854 ADJ7656855
Regular
Feb 14, 2020

ANGELIQUA DIAZ vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY

This case addresses whether a worker can receive penalties for delayed medical treatment when the delay stems from the utilization review (UR) process. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the original decision and finding that Labor Code section 4610.1 bars penalties for delays occurring during UR. Furthermore, the Board determined it lacks jurisdiction to assess the accuracy of UR decisions when those decisions are timely, deferring such disputes to the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process. Therefore, the applicant's petitions for penalties were denied.

Labor Code section 5814Utilization ReviewLabor Code section 4610.1Independent Medical ReviewPrimary Treating PhysicianWCAB jurisdictionDubon v. World RestorationInc.unreasonable delaymandatory statutory guidelines
References
2
Case No. ADJ6939280
Regular
Nov 08, 2018

ROBIN GONZALEZ vs. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SANTA BARBARA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns applicant Robin Gonzalez's claim for ongoing home health care services following a spinal injury. The employer's insurer denied these services via a timely Utilization Review (UR) based on the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's decision, holding that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to review the UR denial because the process was timely and the dispute over medical necessity must be resolved through the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process, as established in Dubon II. Applicant's treating physician can submit a new request if medically necessary, as the prior UR denial is effective for 12 months.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleJurisdictionHome Health CarePermanent DisabilityPetition to ReopenFailed Back SyndromeDubon II
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Steuben Foods, Inc. v. GEA Process Engineering, Inc.

Plaintiff Steuben Foods, Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Defendants GEA Process Engineering and GEA Procomac S.p.A., alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,209,591. The case involved motions for summary judgment filed by the Defendants, which were subject to reports and recommendations by a Magistrate Judge. Following Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's second Report and Recommendation, the District Court reviewed the matter de novo. The Court ultimately denied Plaintiff's objections and adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting Defendants' amended motion for summary judgment. The decision hinged on the proper construction of the patent claim term "into," which the Court found to imply the possibility of contact with the contents of a region, a condition not met by the accused product.

Patent InfringementSummary JudgmentClaim ConstructionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMagistrate JudgeReport and RecommendationObjectionsSterile RegionsValve Activation MechanismAseptic Processing
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. v. Expromtorg International Corp.

The case involves a breach of contract action filed by General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. (GTP), a Connecticut corporation with offices in New York City, against Expromtorg International Corp. and its president, Guennadi Razouvaev, both Michigan residents. The defendants moved to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the original sales notes (OSN), and also sought to dismiss claims against Razouvaev for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff GTP opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion to stay arbitration, arguing that a later, unsigned settlement stipulation had supplanted the arbitration agreement and that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate through litigation. The Court denied the motion to dismiss Razouvaev, finding a prima facie case for piercing the corporate veil based on alleged fraudulent conduct. Ultimately, the Court denied GTP's cross-motion, ruling that the arbitration agreement in the OSN remained effective and that no waiver of arbitration had occurred, thus granting defendants' motion to stay the entire action pending arbitration.

Breach of ContractArbitrationPersonal JurisdictionCorporate Veil PiercingWaiver of ArbitrationDiversity JurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActSales NotesSettlement StipulationAlter Ego Doctrine
References
50
Case No. ADJ2426407 (VEN 0086297)
Regular
Sep 12, 2014

ROCHELLE STOCK vs. CAMARILLO STATE HOSPITAL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant challenged the admissibility of a Utilization Review (UR) denial for a hospital bed, arguing that UR is not applicable to requests from an MPN physician. The WCJ admitted the UR denial, finding the applicant's objection lacked merit and that the UR process is mandatory for all treatment requests, even those from MPN physicians. The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's reconsideration petition as premature. However, treating it as a removal petition, the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, clarifying that MPN participation does not preclude UR review for treatment authorization.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewMedical Provider NetworkPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalFindings and AwardIndependent Medical ReviewPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical Treatment AuthorizationLabor Code Section 4610
References
1
Case No. ADJ3694832 (RDG 0125163)
Regular
Apr 09, 2009

MATHEW JAMISON vs. DEE FAIRBANKS ENTERPRISES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision disallowing a medical equipment lien, and remanded for further proceedings. The WCJ incorrectly relied solely on *Tapia* to disallow the lien without addressing the claimant's arguments regarding defendant's utilization review (UR) process compliance. The Board emphasized that the WCJ must determine whether the treatment was reasonable and necessary, consider the UR process, and explain the reasoning for the decision on all contested issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantUtilization ReviewDurable Medical EquipmentPermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineLumbar SpineMaintenance LaborerReconsideration
References
7
Case No. ADJ1124701 (OAK 0304697)
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

GENE THOMAS vs. SLEEP TRAIN MATTRESS CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision favoring the applicant's spinal surgery, finding that proper procedural steps were not followed. The employer's utilization review (UR) had denied the surgery, but neither party followed the required second-opinion process under Labor Code section 4062(b). The WCAB returned the case to the trial level, allowing the employer ten days from receipt of the decision to object to the surgery and initiate the second-opinion process. This decision aligns with the WCAB's en banc ruling in *Cervantes*, which clarified the procedures for handling spinal surgery disputes after UR denials.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewLabor Code section 4062(b)Spinal SurgerySecond OpinionCervantes v. El Aguila Food ProductsACOEM GuidelinesExperimental TreatmentEn Banc DecisionAdministrative Director Rules
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,018 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