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

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. v. Morganstern

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. sued its former sales executive, Max Morganstern, for unfair competition and breach of a non-compete agreement after he joined a competitor, Summit Pharmacy, Inc., and solicited Innoviant's customer referral sources. Innoviant sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Morganstern from contacting 114 key New York referral sources. The court found Innoviant unlikely to succeed on its breach of contract claim because the employment agreement was deemed unenforceable due to a later signed document. However, the court found Innoviant likely to succeed on its unfair competition claim, as Morganstern misappropriated a list of potential referral sources and business cards. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, restraining Morganstern from contacting the specified referral sources until February 24, 2006, conditioned on Innoviant posting a $100,000 security bond.

Preliminary InjunctionUnfair CompetitionBreach of ContractNon-compete ClauseTrade SecretsCustomer ListsConfidential InformationEmployment AgreementSales ExecutiveReferral Sources
References
50
Case No. ADJ9549773
Regular
Nov 13, 2015

EDWARD BAUTISTA vs. ARLON GRAPHICS, TRAVELERS

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration or removal, finding the WCJ's order was not a final determination. The WCJ correctly ordered the applicant to first discuss his anxiety symptoms and need for psychological referral with his primary treating orthopedist. Applicant is not entitled to a second opinion from a psychologist until the primary treating physician has diagnosed the anxiety or determined a referral is unnecessary. Commissioner Sweeney dissented, believing the applicant had an absolute right to an MPN second opinion for his psychiatric condition without first obtaining a referral from his orthopedist.

ADJ9549773Arlon GraphicsTravelersPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code Section 4616.3Labor Code Section 4616.4Administrative Director Rules
References
4
Case No. ADJ916063 (VNO 0541860)
Regular
Mar 10, 2011

TERRY SCUDDER vs. VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC.; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns an applicant who sustained industrial injuries and pre-designated a physician outside of the employer's established Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant's attorney subsequently referred him to physicians outside the MPN, whose reports were admitted by the WCJ. The Appeals Board overturned this, ruling that only the pre-designated physician, or referrals from that physician, could be outside the MPN and that referrals by an attorney were invalid. Consequently, the reports of these outside physicians were inadmissible, and the issues decided based on them were returned for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPNPre-designationTreating PhysicianQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEPermanent and Stationary DateApportionmentSelf-Procured Medical Treatment
References
1
Case No. ADJ563768 (SBR 0331684), ADJ2410618 (SBR 0338943)
Regular
Mar 22, 2010

JORGE GONZALEZ vs. TOYO TIRE USA, TOKO MARINE PASADENA

Lien claimant Access Health Medical Group seeks full reimbursement for services, arguing the WCJ erred by disallowing most of its lien based on anti-referral laws (Labor Code §§ 139.3, 139.31). Access contends these laws do not apply to in-house referrals for chiropractic, acupuncture, or "work conditioning" services, as these are not "physical therapy." The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the WCJ applied an overly broad definition of physical therapy. The case is returned for further proceedings to determine if the billed services were distinct from physical therapy, or if "work conditioning" constitutes physical therapy under the statute.

Labor Code §§ 139.3Labor Code § 139.31anti-referral lawsin-office referralsphysical therapychiropracticacupuncturework conditioninglien claimantFindings and Order
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dimitropoulos v. Painters Union District Council 9

The plaintiff, Peter Dimitropoulos, sued District Council 9 of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades ("DC-9") for age discrimination under the ADEA. He alleged the union improperly handled his grievance, failed to refer him to jobs, and wrongfully expelled him. The court found no evidence that the union's handling of his grievance or his expulsion after a fight were motivated by age. Crucially, regarding job referrals, the plaintiff admitted he failed to sign the required "out-of-work book," providing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not receiving referrals. As the plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact showing intentional age discrimination, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the ADEA claim.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor Union LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionFederal Court CaseADEA ClaimJob Referral DiscriminationUnion Grievance ProcessMember ExpulsionDisparate Treatment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2006

Barfield v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation

Plaintiff Anetha Barfield, a nurse working at Bellevue Hospital through referral agencies, sued Bellevue and its principal, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, for violating the FLSA's overtime provisions. The central issue was whether Bellevue qualified as Barfield's "employer" under FLSA, given she was paid by referral agencies. Applying the "economic reality" test from Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., the court found that Bellevue exercised functional control over Barfield, making it a joint employer. The court rejected Bellevue's arguments that Barfield was not entitled to overtime because an agency informed her it wouldn't pay overtime or that she prevented Bellevue from tracking her hours. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to Barfield on liability and awarded both unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages due to defendants' failure to ensure FLSA compliance.

FLSAOvertime PayJoint EmployerEconomic Reality TestSummary JudgmentNursing Referral AgenciesWage and Hour LawLiabilityLiquidated DamagesDistrict Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scodary v. Serritella

Claimant established a work-related neck and left arm injury, receiving workers’ compensation benefits for a brief period in December 2003. Her employment was terminated in January 2004, leading to new issues regarding further causally related disability, consequential depression, and withdrawal from the labor market. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim for consequential depression, asserting that her psychologist's treatment lacked the required referral from an authorized physician under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-m (2) (a). The appellate court ruled this exclusion of evidence was an error, stating the statute does not create an evidentiary barrier to a psychologist's testimony and records, even without a physician referral. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the exclusion of evidence for consequential depression, and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsConsequential DepressionPsychologist TestimonyReferral RequirementEvidentiary StandardsCausally Related DisabilityLoss of EarningsAppellate ReviewRemittalMedical Evidence Admissibility
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bastidas v. Epic Realty, LLC

In an action for personal injuries, the defendants, Epic Realty, LLC and Fine Management, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 13, 2008. The order denied their motion to refer issues regarding the plaintiff's employment status to the Workers' Compensation Board for determination. The plaintiff was allegedly injured in May 2004 while working in an apartment owned by Epic and managed by Fine. While the defendants argued the Board had primary jurisdiction, they had previously failed to assert before the Board that they were the plaintiff's employer, and even argued in a prior appeal that the plaintiff was not their employee. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants could not raise the primary jurisdiction argument on the eve of trial given their prior conduct.

Personal InjuryEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation BoardPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewLabor LawAffirmative DefenseExclusivity ProvisionNew York LawLadder Fall
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1998

Ballard v. Community Home Care Referral Service, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning unpaid overtime wages and class action certification. The court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff, a home health care aide, was not entitled to 1.5 times her regular hourly wage for overtime. This decision was based on the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) companion services exemption, which defines overtime compensation for such roles. Furthermore, the presence of a liquidated damages claim precluded class action relief under CPLR 901 (b).

Overtime WagesHome Health Care AideFLSA ExemptionClass ActionAffirmative DefensesNew York Labor LawWage OrderUnpaid WagesCPLR 90129 USC 207
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 71 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