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

United Spinal Ass'n v. Board of Elections in the City of New York

Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action brought an action against the Board of Elections in the City of New York (BOE) under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging pervasive access barriers at poll sites. The Court previously denied a preliminary injunction. Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment. The Court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of pervasive and recurring accessibility barriers and deemed the BOE's accommodation methods insufficient. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendants' cross-motion. The case is now referred to a Magistrate Judge for the determination of the appropriate remedy.

AccessibilityVoting RightsAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActPoll SitesSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationBoard of ElectionsMeaningful AccessReasonable Accommodation
References
26
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23398 [81 Misc 3d 21]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C. v. Global Commodities, Inc.

Plaintiff, Associated Plastic Surgeons & Consultants, P.C., filed a commercial claims action against Global Commodities, Inc. for $5,000 for unpaid medical services provided to an alleged employee. Plaintiff claimed defendant agreed to pay privately. The District Court dismissed the action after excluding a document detailing telephone conversations, which plaintiff argued was admissible under the business records exception or relaxed commercial claims evidence rules. The Appellate Term affirmed the dismissal, ruling that plaintiff failed to prove the patient was injured during employment or that the document was admissible as a business record, thus failing to establish defendant's liability for the medical bill. The court emphasized that while commercial claims courts are not bound by strict evidence rules, judgments cannot rest solely on hearsay.

Commercial claimsMedical servicesUnpaid billsBusiness records exceptionHearsayEvidence rulesEmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate reviewSubstantial justice
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2015

GATTI, SARAHANN v. SCHWAB, RODGER J.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying summary judgment in an action for damages related to serious injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff Sarahann Gatti alleged serious injuries, while the unnamed defendant contended that her spinal injuries were pre-existing from an earlier work-related incident. The Supreme Court's order was modified on appeal, with the appellate court granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the 90/180-day serious injury claim, a category the plaintiff had abandoned. However, the denial of summary judgment for other serious injury categories was affirmed, as the plaintiff successfully raised a triable issue of fact concerning causation through her treating orthopedic surgeon's opinion. The surgeon's testimony attributed Gatti's C6-7 disc injury and the aggravation of pre-existing neck and lower back issues to the accident in question, thus presenting a genuine issue for the trier of fact to resolve.

Motor vehicle accidentSerious injurySummary judgmentCausationSpinal injuriesDisc injuryAggravation of injuryOrthopedic surgeonWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate review
References
10
Case No. ADJ3699477 (OAK 0345390)
Regular
Jul 05, 2011

GARY TOMEI vs. BAY ALARM COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking authorization for cervical surgery, which was denied based on the treating physician's request not being properly formatted per AD Rule 9792.6(o). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the initial denial was due to the applicant's attorney adding a notation to the physician's report instead of the physician clearly marking it as a spinal surgery authorization request. The Board rescinded the original award, deferring the cervical surgery issue and ordering an expedited second opinion from a designated orthopedic surgeon or neurosurgeon.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGary TomeiBay Alarm CompanyTravelers Property and Casualty Insurance CompanyADJ3699477Opinion and Order Granting Reconsiderationcervical surgerylumbar spineAdministrative Director Rule 9792.6(o)treating physician
References
1
Case No. ADJ1420047 (SRO 0136691)
Regular
Sep 17, 2013

MARIA HOLGUIN vs. COTATI-ROHNERT PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, REDWOOD EMPIRE SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration of an award granting the applicant further medical treatment, including lumbar surgery. The Board found that the applicant's need for surgery was supported by substantial medical evidence from treating physicians, despite conflicting opinions from an agreed medical evaluator who had initially misunderstood the applicant's willingness for surgery and a second opinion spinal surgeon whose report was deemed biased. The Board also upheld the denial of the employer's lien for a missed medical appointment due to credible testimony regarding the cancellation's necessity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award & OrdersMedical TreatmentLumbar SurgeryCancellation FeePetition to ReopenStipulations with Request for AwardPrimary Treating PhysicianAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Satalino v. Dan's Supreme Supermarket

This decision affirms the Workers' Compensation Board's determination that the claimant failed to establish a recognizable link between his occupational disease and employment. The claimant, diagnosed with disc herniation, arthritis, spondylolisthesis, and stenosis, presented testimony from two neurological surgeons. Dr. Stephen Burstein could not definitively link the conditions to employment, noting potential causes like chronic degeneration or age. Dr. Artem Vaynman, while performing surgeries, opined that heavy lifting accelerated degeneration but also acknowledged an initial view of no employment relation and a lack of scientific evidence for repetitive lifting causing spinal injury. The court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's conclusion, emphasizing the requirement for a probable and rationally based causal relationship.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation LawCausal RelationshipMedical OpinionDisc HerniationArthritisSpondylolisthesisStenosisHeavy LiftingDegenerative Condition
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Krietsch v. Northport-East Northport UFSD

Kathryn Krietsch (decedent) suffered from scoliosis and had spinal fixation rods. In 2008, she sustained back injuries from a work-related fall, which led to a broken fixation rod eight months later. The Workers’ Compensation Board authorized surgery after overturning a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s finding that the surgery was unrelated to the accident. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator appealed, arguing untimely service of the claimant's application for Board review, which the Board overlooked. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the orthopedic surgeon's testimony provided substantial evidence for a causal link between the work accident and the subsequent back surgery, despite conflicting medical evidence. The appeal regarding the denial of reconsideration and/or full Board review was deemed abandoned.

Workers' CompensationBack InjurySpinal SurgeryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceBoard ReviewTimeliness of ServiceAppellate ReviewScoliosis
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2015

Tuzzolino v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.

In July 2013, the plaintiff was injured in a fall at the defendant's plant, sustaining a wrist fracture, and injuries to the lower back, right leg, and foot. He underwent a lumbar laminectomy in April 2014 and sought treatment from various healthcare providers, including a spinal surgeon. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action alleging Labor Law violations. The defendant served subpoenas on the plaintiff's nonparty treating healthcare providers, claiming the testimony was unavailable through other sources. The plaintiff moved to quash these subpoenas and sought a protective order. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the defendant failed to demonstrate the testimony sought was unrelated to diagnosis and treatment or that it was the only means of obtaining the information. The court emphasized that the treating providers' records were accessible for review by the defendant's experts.

SubpoenasProtective OrderMedical RecordsTreating PhysiciansDepositionsDiscoveryAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySpinal Surgery
References
3
Case No. ADJ3206000 (LAO 0877236)
Regular
Aug 10, 2012

JENNIFER HESTER vs. TECHNICOLOR, Permissibly Self-Insured

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision limiting the defendant's payment for hip surgery to the Official Medical Fee Schedule, which the applicant's surgeon deemed insufficient. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration due to the complex fee dispute, noting that while extraordinary circumstances existed regarding the surgeon's qualifications, the reasonableness of his requested fee was unproven. To resolve this, the Board ordered the appointment of an agreed physician to investigate the surgeon's usual fee and its reasonableness compared to others with similar expertise.

ReconsiderationFindings of FactAgreed PhysicianMedical TreatmentFee ScheduleExtraordinary CircumstancesUsual FeeHip ArthroscopyOsteoplastyChondroplasty
References
1
Case No. ADJ2320623
Regular
Oct 25, 2010

SAMIR SOLOMON vs. TRI VALLEY BUICK, PONTIAC, GMC, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For CASUALTY RECIPROCAL EXCHANGE, In Liquidation

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for an automobile salesman injured on April 14, 2001, resulting in spinal and psychiatric injuries. The WCJ awarded temporary disability through June 22, 2004, 52¼% permanent disability, and further medical treatment for the psyche, but not the spine, denying defendant credit for civil damages. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration, arguing various evidentiary errors, particularly regarding the duration of temporary disability and the need for spinal treatment. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of both petitions, affirming the WCJ's decision, though one Commissioner dissented, believing the applicant's temporary disability claim and spinal treatment need further development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjurySpine InjuryPsychiatric InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityApportionmentMedical TreatmentCivil DamagesReconsideration
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 308 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