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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Carew

The court considered two child abuse petitions filed by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services against a father, based on unsworn statements from his three and five-year-old children. The respondent father moved for psychiatric evaluations of the children and their mother to defend against the allegations, citing the need for expert assessment of the children's credibility. The court balanced the children's welfare against the father's right to a fair trial, noting the unique challenges of corroborating out-of-court statements in Article 10 proceedings. The court granted the father's request to the extent of ordering a validation interview for both children, stipulating a court-designated examiner if parties could not agree. The request for the mother's examination was denied due to insufficient justification.

Child AbuseFamily Court ActPsychiatric EvaluationChild CredibilityHearsay TestimonyCorroboration RequirementDue ProcessParental RightsSuffolk CountyUnsworn Statements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keith v. Astrue

Plaintiff sought disability benefits for depression and bipolar disorder, which were denied by the Commissioner of Social Security. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the claim, rejecting the treating physician's (Dr. Nanavati) opinions and discrediting the social worker's (Ms. Kubrich) notes. The District Court found errors of law by the ALJ, specifically in improperly discounting medical evidence and failing to properly evaluate plaintiff's credibility according to regulations. The court reversed the Commissioner's decision, granted the plaintiff's motion, denied the defendant's motion, and remanded the case for a new hearing with a different ALJ for proper evaluation of all medical evidence and credibility.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActALJ errorTreating physician ruleCredibility assessmentRemandMental impairmentDepressionBipolar disorderVocational expert
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodcock v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

The case involves cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings, where the plaintiff sought remand to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The District Court granted the plaintiff's motion for remand based on two primary reasons. First, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) improperly discounted the opinions of the plaintiff's treating psychiatrist, Dr. Mani, and treating clinical social worker, Clifford Frank, by claiming inconsistencies with treatment notes without sufficient clarification. The ALJ is instructed to clarify these inconsistencies and how reported remission affects the plaintiff's ability to work. Second, the ALJ failed to properly evaluate the plaintiff's credibility by not providing specific reasons for her findings, especially concerning mental ailments. The court mandates that if the ALJ still finds the plaintiff not credible on remand, she must articulate all supporting reasons. The case is thus remanded for further development of the record and evaluation.

Social Security DisabilityAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility DeterminationTreating Physician RuleRemandMental HealthDepressionMedical OpinionTreatment NotesDistrict Court
References
1
Case No. ADJ7503292
Regular
Mar 26, 2013

RIGOBERTO MENDOZA vs. PIZZA MIZZA, GUARD INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Rigoberto Mendoza's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) finding that Mendoza did not sustain the alleged industrial injury. The WCJ's decision was based on an evaluation of witness credibility and inconsistencies in Mendoza's account of the injury. Specifically, the WCJ found the employer's testimony more credible regarding the timing and nature of the reported injury. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, leading to the denial of reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenialCredibilityGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ApplicantEmployerIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryLeg Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ7897753
Regular
Apr 03, 2014

JEFFREY FUJIMOTO vs. CALIBER COLLISION CENTERS, HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior decision, affirming that the applicant did not sustain industrial injury to his psychological system. The applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, as his testimony regarding alleged workplace harassment was contradicted by other witnesses whom the judge found credible. Furthermore, the applicant's credibility was undermined by his false statements about an Agreed Medical Evaluator. The Board incorporated the judge's reasoning, finding the applicant's claim unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCaliber Collision CentersHartford Accident & IndemnityADJ7897753Opinion and OrderDenying Petition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsychological SystemBody TechnicianFindings of Fact & Order
References
4
Case No. ADJ10788598
Regular
Jul 19, 2019

Shanai King vs. Food 4 Less

This case involves a claimant alleging a psychiatric injury due to workplace stress. The administrative law judge (WCJ) denied the claim, finding the applicant's testimony not credible and the medical evaluations insufficient. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the case for further proceedings. This decision stems from deficiencies in the medical evaluator's analysis of causation, conflating injury causation with permanent disability causation, and the need to develop the medical record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderPsyche InjuryQualified Medical EvaluatorIndustrial CausationPredominant CauseGood Faith Personnel ActionSubstantial EvidenceMedical Opinion
References
7
Case No. ADJ10305591
Regular
May 23, 2018

SAYDA LOPEZ ESPANA vs. DR. DANA ROCKEY, STATE FARM CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) who found the applicant's medical evidence persuasive. The WCJ gave great weight to the applicant's credible testimony and found her treating physician's report more convincing than the defense's Qualified Medical Evaluator. The Board affirmed that the WCJ's credibility determinations and reliance on one physician's opinion, even if inconsistent with others, constituted substantial evidence.

Continuous TraumaPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Credibility DeterminationsSubstantial EvidenceMedical ReportingQME EvaluationTreating PhysicianDismissal of ClaimPost-Termination ClaimLabor Code § 5412
References
2
Case No. ADJ6668829, ADJ8586066, ADJ6894986
Regular
Jan 21, 2014

VICTOR FORWARD vs. CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS, INC., ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that denied applicant Victor Forward's claims for industrial injuries. The WCAB rescinded the prior findings, finding that the administrative law judge's (WCJ) decision lacked clear explanation regarding the credibility determination of the applicant's testimony. The matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to provide further reasoning on the credibility and evidence issues. This action allows the WCAB to better evaluate whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Propria personaPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and OrderIndustrial InjuryCredibility DeterminationBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and Recommendation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,274 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