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. ADJ8115084
Regular
Jun 02, 2014

MARY HAYWORTH vs. KCI HOLDINGS USA, INC., FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior finding that the applicant failed to establish a plainly erroneous fact in an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination. The Board found the IMR decision was based on a plainly erroneous mistake of fact because it evaluated a request for dorsal medial branch block injections as though it were a request for facet injections, which are different procedures. Consequently, the medical treatment dispute is remanded to the Administrative Director for review by a different independent review organization or reviewer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610.5Plainly Erroneous Finding of FactMedical Treatment DisputeUtilization ReviewAdministrative DirectorDorsal Medial Branch BlockFacet InjectionsMTUS Guidelines
References
2
Case No. ADJ2068970 (STK 0167616)
Regular
Jul 21, 2016

Norman McAtee vs. Briggs & Pearson Construction, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that dismissed his appeal of an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination regarding pain medication. The IMR found the medication medically unnecessary, but the applicant argues this was based on a plainly erroneous finding of fact regarding the applicable treatment guidelines. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the IMR determination was indeed based on a plainly erroneous interpretation of the medical treatment guidelines. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and remanded the case for a new IMR by a different reviewer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewPlainly Erroneous Finding of FactLabor Code Section 4610.6Medical Treatment GuidelineOpioid TherapyPermanent DisabilityVocational RehabilitationAdministrative Law JudgeReconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. ADJ803377 (RIV 0075685) ADJ6675892
Regular
Oct 05, 2017

SANDRA ARMENTA vs. SAN BERNARDINO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address a plainly erroneous finding of fact in an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination. The IMR incorrectly stated there was no documentation of constipation, despite medical reports confirming this issue, which was a basis for denying Amitiza. The WCAB also noted a case numbering error in the original findings of fact. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the findings and returned the matter to the trial level for correction and further proceedings regarding the IMR determination's validity.

WCABReconsiderationIndependent Medical Review Determination (IMR)Findings of Fact (FOF)San Bernardino Sheriff's DepartmentApplicantPlainly Erroneous FactDocumentationPain ReliefFunctional Benefit
References
2
Case No. ADJ7274592, ADJ9009485
Regular
Aug 01, 2019

Scott Ussery vs. CITY OF MODESTO POLICE DEPARTMENT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The applicant appealed a denial of medications, arguing the Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination was improper because the defendant failed to provide complete medical records. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ erred in deeming the issue solely a medical question. The Board determined the IMR decision was based on plainly erroneous findings of fact and lacked necessary documentation. Consequently, the case is remanded to the Administrative Director for a new IMR by a different reviewer.

Independent Medical ReviewUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4610.6Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJAdministrative DirectorGabapentinAmitriptylineIndustrial Injuries
References
0
Case No. ADJ4 227596 (POM 0281890) MF ADJ3 720208 (POM 0281889)
Regular
Apr 06, 2016

MARISSA GONZALEZ-ORNELAS vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denied authorization for Synvisc knee injections. The original Independent Medical Review (IMR) denied the request, finding no documentation of the applicant's osteoarthritis failing to respond to conservative treatment. The Appeals Board found this IMR determination was based on a plainly erroneous finding of fact, as medical records in the file directly contradicted this assertion. Therefore, the Board granted the applicant's appeal, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and remanded the case for a new IMR.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewSynvisc injectionsOsteoarthritisLabor Code section 4610.6(h)Plainly erroneous finding of factOrdinary knowledgeExcess of powersUtilization reviewTreating physician
References
1
Case No. ADJ2068970 (STK 0167616)
Regular
Aug 20, 2015

Norman McAtee vs. Briggs & Pearson Construction, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding that the Administrative Director's prior Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination was based on plainly erroneous findings of fact. The Board concluded that the IMR wrongly stated there was no documentation of improved function or reduced pain with the applicant's Duragesic patches, citing medical reports and applicant testimony to the contrary. Therefore, the IMR decision was rescinded, the applicant's appeal was granted, and the treatment dispute was remanded for a new IMR.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610.6(h)Plainly Erroneous Findings of FactAdministrative DirectorDuragesicOpioid AnalgesicsPermanent DisabilityMedical Treatment
References
0
Case No. ADJ1413052 (STK 0170134) ADJ4567871 (STK 0173675)
Regular
May 03, 2016

EPIFANIO MEDINA vs. SECOND NATURE, MID-CENTURY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision that an appeal of an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination was untimely. While the WCAB agreed the untimeliness finding lacked evidentiary support, the applicant failed to prove any of the five statutory grounds for appeal of an IMR determination by clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, the applicant could not overturn the IMR's denial of authorization for eight medications. Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing the applicant presented sufficient evidence of plainly erroneous findings of fact in the IMR determination.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDEPIFANIO MEDINASECOND NATUREMID-CENTURY INSURANCEADJ1413052ADJ4567871Petition for ReconsiderationIndependent Medical Review (IMR)Labor Code section 4610.6(h)WCJ
References
8
Case No. 103 B.R. 416
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 1989

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, granting a preliminary injunction against the IAM for their unlawful strike activities targeting Eastern Air Lines at LaGuardia and Hartsfield Airports. The enjoined conduct includes trespassing, mass picketing, harassment, violence, and vandalism against Eastern's employees, customers, and property. The court found that these actions caused substantial and irreparable harm to Eastern and that public authorities were unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection. While the injunction imposed strict restrictions on these disruptive behaviors, the court denied Eastern's request to enjoin residential picketing, citing the Norris-LaGuardia Act. This decision aims to balance the unions' right to strike with Eastern's need to continue operations and protect its assets and personnel during the Chapter 11 reorganization.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeAirline IndustryStrike ActivityUnlawful ConductMass PicketingHarassmentVandalismUnion LiabilityNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
116
Showing 1-10 of 17,240 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