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. ADJ916227 (VNO 0474238)
Regular
Jun 11, 2009

JOANNA LEE FRADY vs. MAGIC FORD AUTO NATIONS, ZURICH, Adjusted By UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS GROUP

This case concerns an applicant's entitlement to further medical treatment for an admitted industrial injury to her back, neck, and right hand. The defendant sought reconsideration of a prior award finding the applicant entitled to treatment recommended by her treating physician, Dr. Caro, specifically a brain MRI, muscle and skin biopsies, and a neurological evaluation. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding Dr. Caro's report conclusory and not substantial evidence, and instead amended the award to grant treatment as recommended by panel Qualified Medical Examiner Dr. Yousefi. Dr. Yousefi's reports, based on thorough examination and testing, concluded that invasive procedures like muscle and skin biopsies were not indicated and recommended an independent neurological evaluation for further clarification.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeFuture Medical TreatmentIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityTreating PhysicianQualified Medical ExaminerSubstantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Neurological Assocs., P.C. v. Highmark Blue Shield & Reed Smith LLP

Plaintiff Long Island Neurological Associates, P.C. sued Highmark Blue Shield and Reed Smith LLP for under-reimbursement of surgical services under ERISA. The case involved a 4-year-old patient who received complex out-of-network surgery from Dr. Schneider due to the unavailability of in-network providers. Highmark significantly under-reimbursed the billed amount and denied multiple appeals, failing to provide requested documentation. The patient's parents assigned their rights to the Plaintiff, leading Defendants to move for dismissal, asserting an anti-assignment provision in their Administrative Service Agreement (ASA). The Court denied the motion, ruling that the ASA is not an ERISA plan document and thus its anti-assignment clause is not binding on plan participants, confirming Plaintiff's standing. The Rule 12(b)(6) motion was also denied as abandoned.

ERISAMotion to DismissAnti-assignment clauseAdministrative Service Agreement (ASA)Plan DocumentSubject Matter JurisdictionStandingUnder-reimbursementOut-of-network providerHealth Insurance
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Mete v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation

This class action alleged age discrimination in employment against the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities (OMRDD). Plaintiffs, former Chiefs of Developmental Center Treatment Services, claimed disparate treatment and disparate impact arising from a 1989 reduction in force (RIF) that eliminated their positions. All 46 Chiefs, who were over 40, were either demoted or retired, and statistical evidence showed a disproportionate impact on employees over 40. The Supreme Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while plaintiffs established a prima facie case, OMRDD provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the RIF (economic conditions and long-standing concerns about the position's utility), which plaintiffs failed to adequately prove was a pretext for discrimination.

Age DiscriminationClass ActionSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactReduction in ForceEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie CaseStatistical Evidence
References
11
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. ADJ3403193 (RIV 0072531)
Regular
Sep 08, 2009

PERRY NICKLE vs. MESA CONTRACTING CORPORATION, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the original award and substituting a new one. The Board found that the applicant did not sustain a hearing loss injury but did sustain neurological and orthopedic permanent disability. They determined that 60% of the orthopedic disability and 50% of the neurological disability were non-industrial, resulting in a revised permanent disability award of 31%. The Board also confirmed the applicant's entitlement to a cane and further medical treatment based on expert medical opinions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityNeurological DisabilityOrthopedic DisabilityHearing LossDegenerative Disease
References
2
Case No. ADJ9267193 (MF) ADJ9267135
Regular
Apr 20, 2020

KAREN HARTMAN vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted applicant Karen Hartman's petition for removal and approved a partial compromise and release agreement. This agreement resolves all claims except future medical treatment in exchange for $813,777, less credits and attorney fees. The WCAB rescinded a prior order for a neurology QME panel, finding the settlement fair and in the applicant's best interest. The award includes continued liability for necessary medical treatment.

Petition for RemovalPartial Compromise and ReleaseQualified Medical EvaluatorsNeurologyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code section 5001Labor Code section 5002WCAB Rule 10700Decision After Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ1885105
Regular
Dec 16, 2010

SCOTT SIMONS vs. SUPERHEAT SERVICES, INC., SPECIALTY RISK PLEASANTON

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding penalties and attorney fees, finding no evidence of unreasonable delay by the defendant. The Board granted the defendant's petition in part, reversing the order for a medical-legal examination by Dr. Sadoff for left knee surgery due to an underdeveloped record. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's award of significant medical treatments, including home care, a motorized wheelchair, and neurological treatment for dementia, finding the treating physician's opinions more persuasive than utilization review denials. Finally, the Board clarified that transportation expenses are only for medical and medical-legal appointments, not legal ones.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardFurther Medical TreatmentDr. DeSallesDr. SadoffHome CareMotorized WheelchairTilt-Table TestENG Study
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Anonymous

This case concerns an adoption proceeding in Nassau County for a neurologically handicapped child. The petitioners, an approved adoptive family, sought to finalize the adoption. Former foster parents, the intervenors, challenged this, claiming a statutory preference for adoption due to their long-term care of the child. The court found that the intervenors had previously declined to adopt the child and failed to take affirmative steps to gain statutory preference while the child was in their care. The decision emphasized that intervention rights apply to current foster parents in custody disputes, and ultimately, the court prioritized the child's best interests by granting the petitioners' adoption application.

AdoptionFoster CareChild WelfareNeurological HandicapBest Interests of ChildInterventionStatutory PreferenceSocial Services LawAgency Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 1979

Claim of Carley v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

The Workers’ Compensation Board filed a decision on September 13, 1979, finding that the claimant's disability after January 21, 1977, was causally related to an industrial accident on January 1, 1977. The Board also determined that the claimant's subsequent treatment at the Veterans Administration Hospital was necessary and authorized. This determination was based on Dr. Russo's testimony. The court reviewed the appeal and found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's decision. Consequently, the decision was affirmed, with costs awarded to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Industrial AccidentCausally Related DisabilityMedical Treatment AuthorizationWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard DecisionVeterans Administration HospitalMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAffirmed Decision
References
0
Case No. ADJ2593762 (SAC 0363364)
Regular
Jul 13, 2012

RICHARD HODGE vs. DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY EXPRESS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision to provide psychiatric treatment. Even if the need for psychiatric treatment stems from a potentially non-compensable psychiatric injury, the employer remains liable if the treatment is reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of a compensable industrial injury. In this case, the applicant's psychiatric treatment was deemed necessary to address cognitive impairment caused by a compensable traumatic brain injury. Therefore, the employer is liable for this treatment under established case law, regardless of the nuances of the six-month employment rule.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary exceptionsix-month employment rulemedical treatmentLabor Code section 4600reasonably requiredcure or relievenon-compensable injurypsychiatric treatmenttraumatic brain injury
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,262 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