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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Evevsky v. Liberty Mutual Group

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's unauthorized medical treatment. The claimant, who sustained neck and shoulder injuries in 1993, had her case reopened in 2001 after the employer's carrier objected to her request for authorized massage therapy. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that the treatment was not authorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-b, as the massage therapist was not Board-authorized nor supervised by an authorized physician. The appellate court reviewed the Board's decision, affirming that there was no legal basis to overturn the finding. The court also considered and dismissed the claimant's constitutional arguments as being without merit.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentMassage TherapyAuthorizationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPhysician SupervisionConstitutionalityPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ10168011
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

BELINDA GO vs. SUTTER SOLANO MEDICAL CENTER

This case involved an applicant who self-procured cervical spine surgery after her employer denied authorization, which was upheld by an Independent Medical Review. Despite the denial, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB affirmed that injured workers are entitled to temporary and permanent disability for reasonable, self-procured medical treatment, even if initially unauthorized. The Board found the self-procured surgery was reasonable due to its positive outcome, and the Permanent Qualified Medical Evaluator's findings supported the disability award. The WCAB clarified that utilization review and independent medical review processes do not preclude temporary disability indemnity for self-procured treatment deemed reasonable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUtilization Review (UR)Independent Medical Review (IMR)Self-Procured SurgeryTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent DisabilityPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Medical Treatment DisputesLabor Code Section 4600
References
14
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

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. ADJ4588032 (VNO 0509614)
Regular
May 13, 2009

PEGGY SPARGO vs. CITY OF BALDWIN PARK

This case involves a lien claimant, RS Medical, seeking payment for durable medical equipment provided to an applicant for an admitted industrial injury. The defendant, City of Baldwin Park, denied authorization for the treatment through its utilization review (UR) process. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, upholding the trial judge's decision. The WCAB found that the defendant's UR denials were timely and unchallenged by the applicant, and thus RS Medical failed to prove the necessity of the treatment or sustain its burden of proof for payment. Therefore, the employer is not liable for the unauthorized medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Baldwin ParkRS Medicallien claimreconsiderationFindings and Orderworkers' compensation judgeWCJindustrial injuryupper extremities
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. ADJ7735518 ADJ7735519 ADJ7735513 ADJ7735501 ADJ7735502 ADJ7736429 ADJ7736449 ADJ7735498 ADJ7098593 ADJ7735514
Regular
Jul 29, 2014

Marialaine Tabak vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding a dispute over medical treatment authorization. The core issue was whether a Medical Provider Network (MPN) could restrict treatment to specific office locations of a listed physician. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the defendant school district properly denied authorization for treatment at an unauthorized location of an MPN physician. The MPN's explicit listing stated providers were in-network only at designated locations, and this contractual limitation was upheld. Therefore, treatment outside the approved location was at the applicant's own expense.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNPhysician locationAuthorizationSelf-procureGeographic limitExclusive rightContractual limitationsEmployer's obligationAdministrative Director's Rule
References
2
Case No. ADJ6929468, ADJ6929466
Regular
Apr 27, 2018

ISRAEL ZIRATE vs. YUM YUM DONUT SHOP, INC., BENCHMARK INSURANCE COMPANY, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of a joint findings and award which denied payment for medical treatment. The claimant argued the employer's Medical Provider Network (MPN) was invalid and that treatment was improperly denied. The Appeals Board admitted evidence confirming the MPN's validity and affirmed the original finding. The Board concluded the applicant's treatment was from an unauthorized provider and therefore not the employer's liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardLien ClaimantQualified Medical ExaminerQMECompromise and ReleaseIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ4634941
Regular
Jan 13, 2011

BERONICA NUNEZ vs. TELCO FOOD PRODUCTS, CNA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision. The judge had previously denied the lien in its entirety, finding that treatment provided outside the approved Medical Provider Network (MPN) was unauthorized. The Board affirmed this, holding that the applicant failed to follow MPN procedures for seeking further opinions before obtaining treatment outside the network. Therefore, the lien claimant was not entitled to payment for the unauthorized treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and ReleasePanel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Medical Provider Network (MPN)Unauthorized treatmentLabor Code section 4616.3(c)MPN second and third opinions
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 9,346 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