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. MON 0339411
Regular
Jul 21, 2008

Dionisio Jimenez vs. NUPAC APARTMENTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over the proper method used to rate the applicant's permanent disability following a back and leg injury. The defendant contends the Agreed Medical Examiner improperly used the Range of Motion (ROM) method instead of the Diagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE) method per the AMA Guides. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case to the trial level for further development of the record. This development will address why the ROM method was used and clarify the appropriate rating methodology.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDionisio JimenezNupac ApartmentsState Compensation Insurance FundMON 0339411Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryRight Leg Injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ10489999
Regular
Feb 01, 2019

Sean Lawson vs. Zenith Insurance Company

This case involves a dispute over the permanent disability rating for applicant Sean Lawson's low back injury. The defendant, Zenith Insurance Company, argues that the Range of Motion (ROM) method used by the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) was inappropriate, and the Diagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) method should have been applied as there was only one level of radiculopathy. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's finding that the ROM method was appropriate based on the QME's expert opinion and the AMA Guides' provision for its use with multi-level involvement. However, one Commissioner dissented, believing the DRE method was mandated given the lack of evidence for multi-level radiculopathy.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentNon-industrial factorsDiagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) methodRange of Motion (ROM) methodQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)AMA GuidesMultilevel radiculopathy
References
1
Case No. ADJ9344211
Regular
Dec 01, 2017

Patricia Preston vs. Los Angeles Unified School District, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, challenging the permanent disability rating primarily based on the chosen medical evaluation method. The applicant argued the Range-of-Motion (ROM) method, favored by her treating physician, should have been used instead of the Diagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) method employed by a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). Additionally, she contended that her vocational expert's opinion supported a finding of total permanent disability. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision, finding the QME's DRE rating supported by substantial evidence and the applicant's vocational evidence insufficient to prove total disability. A dissenting opinion argued that findings of multi-level spinal involvement supported the use of the ROM method for a potentially higher rating and questioned the QME's justification for choosing DRE.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPatricia PrestonLos Angeles Unified School DistrictSedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ9344211Permanent Disability RatingRange-of-Motion MethodDiagnosis-Related Estimates MethodApportionmentDr. Fenton
References
6
Case No. ADJ6820630
Regular
Mar 19, 2018

MARK COLLINS vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The WCAB dismissed the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order. The Board granted the Defendant's Petition for Removal to rescind the WCJ's order vacating submission and appointing a new physician. The WCJ erred by refusing to accept the AME's rating based on the Diagnosis-Related Estimate (DRE) method, as physicians have discretion to use the most accurate method. However, the AME's own deposition testimony indicated that the Range of Motion (ROM) method, mandated by the WCJ, would yield a higher impairment rating. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to obtain a permanent disability rating using the existing record and potentially consulting a DEU rater.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Range of Motion (ROM) methodDiagnosis-Related Estimates (DRE) methodAmerican Medical Association's Guides (AMA Guides)Whole Person Impairment (WPI)cumulative traumaspinal injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

This document addresses a procedural matter where a motion for reargument of a previous motion for leave to appeal was considered by the court. The outcome of this specific motion was a denial. Notably, Judge Feinman indicated that he took no part in the decision-making process for this particular motion. The text also references a prior related case decided in 2017.

ReargumentLeave to AppealMotion DeniedAppellate ProcedureRecusal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 1999

Murphy v. American Airlines, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Ebner Woodworking Company, was injured at John F. Kennedy Airport while manually transporting gang boxes down six flights of stairs after hoists were dismantled and he was prohibited from using an elevator. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied V.R.H. Construction Corp.'s cross-motion to dismiss claims under Labor Law § 240 (1), § 241 (6), and § 200. The appellate court modified the order, granting V.R.H.'s cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, but affirmed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court found that plaintiff's injuries implicated elevation-related risks under Labor Law § 240 (1). It also noted that a viable claim under Labor Law § 200 exists due to material issues of fact regarding V.R.H.'s actions influencing the method of material removal.

Construction accidentElevation-related riskWorkplace injurySummary judgment motionAppellate DivisionStatutory constructionIndustrial Code violationsScaffold useHoist removalManual material handling
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of America

This document concerns a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The motion was denied. The decision references an earlier case cited as 26 NY3d 981 from 2015. It is noted that Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Garcia did not participate in this ruling.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealDenied MotionAppellate ProcedureJudicial Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2005

Hughes v. Tishman Construction Corp.

Plaintiff James Hughes, a concrete laborer, was injured on April 10, 2001, while working on a construction project when a concrete hose clogged and, upon premature disassembly, whipped around, striking him and another worker. Hughes and his wife sued the construction manager Tishman Westside Construction and concrete pumping service A & B Preferred Concrete Pumping Service, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200. Tishman moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not control the work's means and methods. A & B cross-moved, claiming it only leased the truck and did not employ the operator. The Supreme Court initially denied both motions in part. On appeal, the higher court modified the order, granting Tishman's motion for summary judgment regarding common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, dismissing those causes of action against Tishman, but otherwise affirmed the denial of A & B's cross-motion, citing triable issues of fact concerning the concrete pump operator's identity and employment relationship. The dissenting opinion argued for affirming the original order in its entirety against both defendants, asserting that sufficient evidence existed to raise a question of fact regarding Tishman's supervision and control over the work.

Construction accidentLabor LawCommon-law negligenceSummary judgmentSupervisory controlMeans and methodsSubcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor liabilityConcrete pumpPersonal injury
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 10,137 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