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 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care
References
4
Case No. 2017-407 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2019

Apple Massage Therapy, P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Apple Massage Therapy, P.C., as an assignee, against 21st Century Ins. Co. The plaintiff sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The appeal challenged an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which had granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint. The appellate court found that the defendant adequately demonstrated the proper mailing of denial of claim forms and the correct application of the workers' compensation fee schedule for determining benefits. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Civil Court's order.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDenial of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleInsurance LawCivil ProcedureAssignee ClaimMailing PresumptionMedical Provider
References
1
Case No. 2014-716 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2017

Apple Massage Therapy, P.C. v. Adirondack Ins. Exch.

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court concerning an action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, Adirondack Insurance Exchange, had moved for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff's assignor failed to appear for examinations under oath (EUOs). The Civil Court initially granted this branch of the defendant's motion. However, the Appellate Term reversed the decision, stating that a mutual rescheduling of an EUO prior to its scheduled date does not constitute a failure to appear. Consequently, the defendant did not demonstrate a failure to appear at both an initial and follow-up EUO, which is a condition precedent to coverage. The matter was remitted to the Civil Court to determine the remaining branch of the defendant's motion regarding recovery in excess of the workers' compensation fee schedule.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentExaminations Under Oath (EUOs)Condition Precedent to CoverageMutual ReschedulingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermCivil CourtFirst-Party BenefitsAssigned Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavides v. Serenity Spa NY Inc.

Gloria Benavides initiated a collective action lawsuit against Serenity Spa NY Inc. and Yu Qun Dai, alleging unpaid wages, including minimum wage and overtime violations, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law. Benavides, who worked as a nail technician and massage therapist, sought conditional collective action certification for all non-exempt employees. The Court partially granted her motion, conditionally certifying the collective action for employees within three years of the complaint, but denied immediate requests for a six-year notice period and Social Security numbers. The order also resolved discovery disputes, compelling production of certain wage and hour documents and text messages for a six-year period.

Wage and HourFLSA Collective ActionConditional CertificationMinimum Wage ViolationsOvertime CompensationNew York Labor LawDiscovery DisputesNotice PeriodContact Information DisclosureSpa Industry
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1997

In re HTA of New York, Inc.

HTA of New York, Inc., a home referral agency connecting patients with therapists, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that classified its therapists as employees, leading to additional unemployment insurance contributions. The core issue was whether HTA exercised sufficient direction and control over the therapists to establish an employer-employee relationship, as opposed to an independent contractor status. The Court distinguished this case from prior precedents like *Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assocs. (Roberts)* and *Matter of Goldstein, P. C. (Roberts)*, where employers exerted substantial control over key aspects of professional services. In contrast, HTA's involvement was largely limited to referral and fee collection, with therapists maintaining autonomy over their work, schedules, patient acceptance, and supplies, operating under contracts that affirmed their independent business entity status. The Court concluded that substantial evidence did not support an employer-employee relationship, reversing the Board's decision and remitting the case for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorTherapistsHome Referral AgencyProfessional ServicesControl TestAdministrative AppealLabor LawContract Terms
References
2
Case No. ADJ7568484
Regular
Nov 14, 2014

CHERISH ORANJE vs. CRESTWOOD BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant residing in Nevada who was receiving telephonic therapy from a California-licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing that the telephonic therapy violated Nevada law as the therapist was not licensed in Nevada. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, holding that California law governs treatment for injuries sustained in California, and the teletherapy in question complied with California's telehealth statutes. The Board concluded that the therapist's location in California while providing services to a Nevada resident did not violate California law, and any potential violation of Nevada law was irrelevant to the California workers' compensation claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical TreatmentTelephonic TherapyMarriage and Family TherapistTelemedicine Development ActTelehealth Advancement ActBusiness and Professions CodeSynchronous Interaction
References
0
Case No. NA-XXXXX-XX/XX
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jonathan C.

This case involves an Article 10 child abuse and neglect proceeding initiated by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) against respondent mother Kimberly F. and her former paramour, Mr. O., concerning three children. The court addresses two motions: one from ACS to compel testimony from Ms. F.’s mental health providers regarding her insight and parenting capabilities, which Ms. F. and her therapists sought to quash citing therapist-patient privilege and HIPAA. The second motion is from Brian C., Ms. F.’s former paramour, seeking to intervene as Jonathan C.'s father, which was previously disavowed by him. The court denied Ms. F.'s motion to quash the subpoenas, compelling the therapists' testimony while limiting disclosure of therapeutic records. It also denied Mr. C.'s motion to intervene, citing the doctrine of judicial estoppel due to his prior inconsistent statements regarding paternity. However, the court granted his alternative request for DNA testing to definitively establish Jonathan's biological father, prioritizing the accurate determination of paternity over judicial estoppel.

Child abuseChild neglectTherapist-patient privilegeHIPAAMental Hygiene LawFamily Court ActSubpoena quashIntervention motionPaternity disputeDNA testing
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1998

Claim of Washington v. New York City Department of Transportation

Claimant, an employee of the New York City Department of Transportation, injured his back in a work-related automobile accident. He purchased a self-massage table and had his bathroom remodeled for a whirlpool tub, both medically recommended but without prior employer authorization. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge awarded reimbursement for the massage table but denied the whirlpool tub installation. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified the decision, awarding an additional $200 for a detachable whirlpool unit. The claimant appealed this modification, and the decision was affirmed, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's decision regarding the reasonableness of costs for the whirlpool tub, despite a physician's letter noting the purchased tub's appropriateness.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementSelf-insured EmployerAutomobile AccidentBack InjuryPhysical RehabilitationMedical DevicesWhirlpool TubMassage TableReasonableness of Costs
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 75 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