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
Dec 21, 1995

In re Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc.

Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc., providing medical and vocational rehabilitative services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions, finding that specialists hired by Jordan were employees, not independent contractors, between 1989 and 1991. The court reviewed whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors included Jordan's control over recruitment, screening, compensation, billing, and contractual restrictions on specialists. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Jordan exercised sufficient overall control to establish an employer-employee relationship and thus was liable for the contributions.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRehabilitation ServicesLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceControl TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeDepartment of Labor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brentwood Pain & Rehabilitation Services, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance

This opinion addresses whether Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedures are subject to the same fee limitations as X-rays under New York's no-fault auto insurance law. Plaintiffs, a group of MRI service providers ("Providers"), argued that applying x-ray fee schedules to MRIs is improper and violates insurance contracts. Defendants, numerous insurance companies ("Insurers"), along with the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) and Department of Insurance (DOI), contended that the fee limitations for multiple diagnostic x-ray procedures (Ground Rule 3 of the WCB Fee Schedule) should also apply to MRIs. The court, deferring to the interpretations of the WCB and DOI, found their application of Ground Rule 3 to MRIs to be reasonable. Consequently, the court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, denied the Providers' cross-motion for summary judgment, and denied the Providers' motion for class certification as moot.

MRIX-rayNo-Fault InsuranceFee ScheduleWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of InsuranceRegulatory InterpretationSummary JudgmentClass ActionDiagnostic Imaging
References
35
Case No. ADJ2862114
Regular
Oct 30, 2008

PATRICIA TRUJILLO vs. EARTHLINK, INC., CHUBB INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior ruling that the defendant, Earthlink, Inc., owes vocational rehabilitation benefits to the applicant, Patricia Trujillo. The court found that the defendant failed to provide legally required notices when the applicant deferred vocational rehabilitation services. This failure meant the deferral was invalid, making the defendant liable for vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) from the date of the notice breach.

Vocational rehabilitationAD Rule 9813(a)(4)VRMAdeferral of servicesnotice requirementsclaims administratorinterrupted servicesreinstatement of servicesstatute of limitationsemployer's duty
References
6
Case No. ADJ4303823
Regular
Dec 11, 2008

GLORIA BUSTOS vs. BAYSIDE SERVICES/STAFFING, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION through their servicing facility CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., for LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of retroactive VRMA, finding that merely listing vocational rehabilitation as an issue in applications did not establish a good faith demand for services. However, the Board rescinded the denial of attorney's fees under LC 5814.5, remanding the issue for further determination in light of the en banc decision in *Ramirez v. Drive Financial Services*. This ruling clarifies that LC 5814.5 applies to delays occurring after January 1, 2003, regardless of the injury date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceQualified Injured WorkerLabor Code section 5814.5Date of InjuryDate of AwardApplication for Adjudication of ClaimGood Faith DemandRehabilitation UnitUnreasonable Delay
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. AHM 0099560 AHM 0099539 AHM 0099552 AHM 0099611 AHM 0099625 AHM 0099626 AHM 0102769
Regular
Oct 16, 2007

CHERILYNN H. CAIRNS vs. CON AGRA GROCERY PRODUCTS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior award, establishing that the applicant is entitled to Vocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA) at the temporary disability rate. This VRMA is payable from November 16, 2006, onward, a date determined by the applicant's unequivocal demand for vocational rehabilitation services. The Board clarified that prior stipulations did not obligate payment from an earlier date, as VRMA is contingent upon an employee's willingness to participate in rehabilitation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance Allowance (VRMA)Temporary Total Disability (TTD) rateFindings Award and OrderRehabilitation Unit (RU)Stipulation and OrderGastric Bypass SurgeryPermanent and Stationary ReportLabor Code section 139.5(c)
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. ADJ2723383
Regular
Oct 13, 2010

DIDIER ROSA vs. XCELSIS CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an employee seeking vocational rehabilitation services and retroactive benefits after a neck injury. The insurer, SCIF, failed to appeal a Rehabilitation Unit determination that authorized these services and benefits at the "delay rate." Although SCIF argued jurisdiction and statutory repeal issues, the Board affirmed the Unit's determination, finding SCIF waived its defenses by not appealing. However, the Board limited the award of vocational rehabilitation services, finding the right to them was inchoate and expired with legislative changes.

Rehabilitation Unitvocational rehabilitation servicesretroactive benefitsdelay rateghost statutesvested rightsinchoaterepealed statutesLabor Code section 139.5final judgment
References
4
Case No. AHM 0116452 AHM 0116457 AHM 0116470
Regular
Jul 21, 2008

BRUCE SERVISS vs. RALPH'S GROCERY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the award to clarify that the applicant is not entitled to duplicative temporary disability and vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance payments for the same period. The Board found the defendant breached its duty to provide timely vocational rehabilitation notices after the applicant's January 16, 2004 permanent and stationary date. Consequently, the defendant remains liable for vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance from that date, adjusted for prior payments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationVocational RehabilitationMaintenance AllowanceTemporary DisabilityIndustrial InjuryMeat CutterRalph's GrocerySedgwick Claims Management ServicesPermanent and Stationary
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 7,866 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