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

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. ADJ7679237
Regular
Oct 27, 2017

VALERIE TRUJILLO vs. COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a previous award. The Board found that the administrative law judge erred by failing to address the applicant's vocational expert evidence concerning permanent total disability. The Board also directed the judge to incorporate an agreed medical evaluator's opinion on right ankle impairment if the vocational evidence is rejected. Jurisdiction was reserved on the issue of permanent disability, allowing for further evaluation of the vocational evidence.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardSpecial Education AideLumbar SpineRight AnklePsychePermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMA Guides
References
8
Case No. ADJ7944187
Regular
Feb 19, 2014

LISA MENDOZA vs. RITE AID CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The defendant, Rite Aid Corporation, petitioned for removal after the WCJ quashed a deposition and set an unreasonably short deadline for a vocational evaluation. The Appeals Board granted the petition, finding merit in the defendant's arguments regarding discovery limitations. The Board amended the prior orders, keeping discovery open for the vocational evaluator's report and depositions of qualified medical evaluators. This allows the defendant to fully pursue its discovery related to impairment, apportionment, and recent sub rosa video evidence.

Petition for RemovalVocational Rehabilitation AssessmentQuashed DepositionPermanent ImpairmentApportionmentSub Rosa VideoQualified Medical EvaluatorsIra CohenDiscoveryWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ7399938 ADJ7068967
Regular
Jun 23, 2015

OLENA GARCIA vs. RESIDENCE INN, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case for further development of the record. The initial award found permanent total disability based on a vocational expert's opinion, but the Board found this opinion lacked substantial medical evidence. Specifically, the medical expert's supplemental report was not based on a current evaluation, and the vocational expert's conclusions, relying on that report, were therefore also flawed. The matter is remanded to allow for a current medical evaluation and reassessment of vocational rehabilitation and diminished earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent Total DisabilityJoint Findings and AwardVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidenceScheduled RatingFunctional Capacity EvaluationAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionmentModified Work
References
0
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. ADJ1966312 (AHM 0071600)
Regular
Jul 02, 2009

CHERYL BOND-DICKEY vs. LAW OFFICE OF SATIN & RUSSELL, SCIF INSURED SANTA ANA

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a finding of 100% permanent disability for a paralegal/file clerk who sustained an industrial injury. The defendant argued the vocational expert's evaluation was insufficient. However, the Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant failed to request further vocational evaluation at trial or provide rebuttal evidence. The Board also noted the defendant's petition lacked the specific detail and record references required by regulation.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardFindings Award and Orderspermanent disabilityvocational expertopen labor marketpetition for reconsiderationagreed vocational evaluatorsubstantial medical evidenceReport and Recommendationindustrial injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ7171707
Regular
Oct 27, 2014

MARLENA SHORE vs. MICHAEL HOPKINS, DDS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, finding that the vocational evaluations presented did not constitute substantial evidence regarding the applicant's diminished future earning capacity. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original award and returned the case to the trial level. This allows for the development of the record with supplemental reports from vocational evaluators and potentially physicians. The issues of permanent disability rating, indemnity benefits, and attorney fees are deferred pending further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryDental HygienistRight ThumbRight WristPermanent Partial DisabilityDiminished Future Earning CapacityVocational EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorTreating Physician
References
1
Case No. ADJ10304125
Regular
Oct 04, 2019

EDUARDO VEGA vs. REDWOOD EMPIRE SAWMILL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a worker seeking to reopen his claim for new and further disability following a 2014 lumbar spine injury. The applicant contended his disability had worsened to permanent total disability, citing vocational expert testimony and medical reports indicating increased work restrictions. However, the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) found no change in industrial disability, and his recent evaluation supported the original finding of no new and further disability. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's vocational evidence unpersuasive without a medical basis for increased disability.

New and further disabilityPetition for ReconsiderationVocational expertPermanent disabilityQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Petition to ReopenPrimary treating physicianWork restrictionsPermanent total disabilityLabor Code section 5410
References
2
Case No. ADJ9344211
Regular
Dec 01, 2017

Patricia Preston vs. Los Angeles Unified School District, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, challenging the permanent disability rating primarily based on the chosen medical evaluation method. The applicant argued the Range-of-Motion (ROM) method, favored by her treating physician, should have been used instead of the Diagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) method employed by a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). Additionally, she contended that her vocational expert's opinion supported a finding of total permanent disability. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision, finding the QME's DRE rating supported by substantial evidence and the applicant's vocational evidence insufficient to prove total disability. A dissenting opinion argued that findings of multi-level spinal involvement supported the use of the ROM method for a potentially higher rating and questioned the QME's justification for choosing DRE.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPatricia PrestonLos Angeles Unified School DistrictSedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ9344211Permanent Disability RatingRange-of-Motion MethodDiagnosis-Related Estimates MethodApportionmentDr. Fenton
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,386 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