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

Yklik Medical Supply, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Yklik Medical Supply, Inc., a medical supply provider, sued Allstate Insurance Company to recover $317 in unpaid medical bills for equipment supplied to its assignor, Tammy Agosto. Yklik moved for summary judgment, asserting proper bill submission and Allstate's failure to timely pay or deny the claim. Allstate argued that the charges exceeded the Workers' Compensation fee schedule and that a partial payment had been made. The court found that Yklik established a prima facie case. The central issue was whether Allstate's fee schedule defense was precluded due to its failure to issue a timely denial within 30 days as mandated by Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. The court ruled that since Allstate waited 56 days to send its denial, it was precluded from raising the fee schedule defense, and therefore, summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.

No-fault insurancesummary judgmenttimely denialfee schedulepreclusion ruleinsurance lawmedical supplybilling practicespersonal injury protectionassignor
References
19
Case No. 25 NY3d 907
Regular Panel Decision
2015-XX-XX

Government Employees Insurance v. Avanguard Medical Group, PLLC

This case addresses whether no-fault insurance carriers are obligated to pay facility fees to New York State-accredited office-based surgery (OBS) centers for the use of their premises and support services. The court concluded that neither existing statutes nor regulations mandate such payments. Plaintiffs, a group of GEICO insurers, successfully sought a declaratory judgment that they are not legally required to reimburse Avanguard Medical Group, PLLC, for OBS facility fees, totaling over $1.3 million. The decision affirmed the Appellate Division's ruling, emphasizing that OBS facility fees are not explicitly covered by statute or fee schedules, nor do they fall under reimbursable "professional health services" as per 11 NYCRR 68.5. The court highlighted the distinct regulatory frameworks for OBS centers compared to hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers, declining to mandate policy changes best left to the legislature.

No-Fault InsuranceOffice-Based Surgery (OBS)Facility FeesInsurance LawBasic Economic LossFee SchedulesWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of Financial ServicesStatutory InterpretationRegulatory Framework
References
16
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. ADJ9725603
Regular
Nov 23, 2020

LUZ LOZA vs. GOLDBLATT GOLDBLATT/BAY AREA RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order finding the applicant entitled to pre-authorization for their treating physician to issue a PR-4 report at the medical-legal billing rate. While affirming the applicant's right to obtain the report, the Board clarified that the defendant retains the right to object to or raise defenses regarding the physician's billing. The Board reasoned that treating physicians are permitted to provide comprehensive medical-legal evaluations, and such reports are governed by specific medical-legal fee schedules, not the Official Medical Fee Schedule.

PR-4 reportmedical-legal billing ratepre-authorizationprimary treating physician (PTP)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)comprehensive medical evaluationOfficial Medical Fee SchedulePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Order (F&O)Labor Code
References
3
Case No. ADJ2337190 (LAO 0829672) ADJ3193895 (LAO 0829673) ADJ187762 (LAO 0829674)
Regular
Apr 21, 2009

OLIVIA HUERTA vs. GMP LABORATORIES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant, Dr. Elena Konstat, seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that limited reimbursement for her medical-legal reports. The Board found that the original decision erred in disallowing two of Dr. Konstat's three medical-legal reports. The Board clarified that the Official Medical Fee Schedule for treatment rates does not apply to medical-legal expenses, and the testimony of the defendant's lien negotiator was not substantial evidence. Consequently, the Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original finding, and substituted a new finding allowing reimbursement for all three of Dr. Konstat's medical-legal reports, with the exact amounts, penalties, and interest to be determined.

Medical-legal lienReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial injuryNervous system injuryPsycheLicensed clinical psychologistMedical-legal expensesOfficial Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS)Compromise and Release (C&R)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doctor of Medicine in the House, P.C. v. Allstate Ins.

This case concerns a medical service provider plaintiff seeking $1,876.76 in no-fault claim benefits. The defendant insurance company denied the claim, citing that the fees were excessive under the workers’ compensation fee schedule and that prior reimbursements had exhausted the daily 8-unit limit for physical medicine procedures. The central legal question involved interpreting paragraph 11 of the Official New York Workers’ Compensation Medical Fee Schedule, Physical Medicine (2010), specifically whether the 8-unit limit applied per provider or cumulatively across all claimants. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, clarifying that the 8-unit rule is an individual provider fee limitation and not an exhaustion regulation for all claimants, distinguishing it from the $50,000 basic economic loss limit.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleMedical Reimbursement8-unit RuleFee Schedule InterpretationInsurance LawPhysical MedicineStatutory InterpretationClaim DenialExcessive Billing
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jesa Medical Supply, Inc. v. GEICO Insurance

Plaintiff commenced this action against GEICO to recover first-party no-fault benefits for medical services totaling $796.46. GEICO denied the claims, citing lack of medical necessity and charges exceeding the workers' compensation fee schedule. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff for $16.46, finding GEICO failed to provide sufficient evidence for its fee schedule defense on that specific amount. Conversely, the court denied plaintiff's motion for the $780 claim and dismissed that cause of action, accepting GEICO's timely mailed denial and an admissible peer review report by Dr. Andrew R. Miller establishing lack of medical necessity. The court also ruled that defects in the defendant's attorney affirmation did not warrant summary judgment for the plaintiff.

no-fault benefitsmedical necessityfee schedulesummary judgmentpeer reviewelectronic signatureinsurance claimsNew York Civil Courtmedical provider reimbursementtimely denial
References
15
Case No. 2014-1081 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2016

High Quality Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Mercury Ins. Group

This case involves an appeal concerning assigned first-party no-fault benefits sought by High Quality Medical Supplies, Inc., as assignee of Charles Botwee. The defendant, Mercury Ins. Group, appealed an order from the Civil Court that denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. Mercury Ins. Group contended that billing for durable medical equipment not listed in a fee schedule is not compensable. However, the Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision, citing 11 NYCRR 68.5, which specifically permits reimbursement for healthcare services not explicitly covered by fee schedules, thereby rejecting the defendant's argument.

No-Fault BenefitsFirst-Party BenefitsDurable Medical EquipmentFee ScheduleSummary JudgmentAppellate TermAssigned BenefitsInsurance LawReimbursementCivil Court
References
3
Case No. 2017-2088 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2019

Quality Comprehensive Med. Care, P.C. v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

The Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed an appeal concerning assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, Quality Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., appealed a Civil Court order that granted summary judgment to the defendant, New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company, dismissing the complaint. The defendant had denied claims asserting a lack of medical necessity and excessive fees. The appellate court determined that the defendant did not establish a lack of medical necessity. However, it agreed that fees exceeding $425.88 per claim surpassed the allowed amount under the workers' compensation fee schedule. Therefore, the Civil Court's order was modified to dismiss only the portion of the complaint seeking recovery in excess of $425.88 per claim, and the order was affirmed as modified.

No-fault benefitsMedical necessityWorkers' compensation fee scheduleSummary judgmentAppellate reviewInsurance claimsFee disputeAssigned benefitsCivil CourtKings County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cornell Medical, P.C. v. Mercury Casualty Co.

This appellate decision addresses an action by healthcare providers seeking assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and to amend its answer to include a counterclaim for unjust enrichment, citing alleged overcharges based on workers' compensation fee schedules. The Civil Court initially denied both branches of the defendant's motion due to preclusion. On appeal, the order was modified. Summary judgment was granted to the defendant, dismissing the first, second, seventh, and eighth causes of action, and a portion of the third cause of action, primarily because the claims were fully paid with interest and attorney's fees exceeded fee schedules. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to amend its answer for a counterclaim, finding it lacked merit due to preclusion. The denial of summary judgment concerning medical necessity for other parts of the third cause of action was also affirmed, as an issue of fact existed.

no-fault insurancesummary judgmentfee schedule overpaymentattorney's feesCPLR 3025(b)preclusion doctrinemedical necessityappellate reviewCivil Courtunjust enrichment
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 13,505 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