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. 2024 NYSlipOp 01360 [225 AD3d 1013]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2024

Matter of Mina v. New York City Tr. Auth.

George Mina, the claimant, sustained a back injury in December 2020, leading to a workers' compensation claim. The employer, New York City Transit Authority, scheduled two independent medical examinations (IMEs) in Manhattan, which Mina failed to attend, asserting the travel distance from his Livingston, New Jersey residence was unreasonable. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no good cause for his absence but ordered the employer to arrange an IME within 30 miles of Mina's home, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the Manhattan IME location (22.3 miles, one-hour drive) was a reasonable distance, especially given Mina's practice of traveling 39 miles to Brooklyn for his treating physician.

Workers' CompensationIndependent Medical ExaminationIMEReasonable DistanceTravel ExpenseClaimant ComplianceBack InjuryAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentNew York
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06763 [222 AD3d 1013]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2023

Rodriguez v. 27-11 49th Ave. Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, Tomas Rodriguez, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendant Mana Products, Inc., dismissing the complaint against it. Rodriguez had sued 27-11 49th Avenue Realty, LLC, and Mana after a slip and fall in a factory. The defendants argued that the complaint against Mana was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, claiming Rodriguez was Mana's special employee. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendants established a prima facie case for summary judgment based on Rodriguez's deposition testimony, indicating Mana controlled his work details, thus establishing a special employment relationship as a matter of law.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary Judgment GrantPersonal Injury ClaimAppellate Division Second DepartmentControl over WorkEmployer LiabilityPlaintiff's AppealDefendant's MotionSlip and Fall Accident
References
5
Case No. ADJ984305
Significant
Sep 17, 2015

Joann Matute, Applicant vs. Los Angeles Unified School District, defendants

The Appeals Board held that the term 'mailing' in Labor Code section 4610.6(h) is equivalent to 'service by mail', thus extending the 30-day period to file an Independent Medical Review (IMR) appeal by five days under C.C.P. section 1013(a), making the applicant's appeal timely.

IMR determinationservice by mailCode of Civil Procedure 1013(a)Labor Code 4610.6(h)Appeals Board en bancPetition for ReconsiderationUtilization ReviewAdministrative Directoruntimely appeal30-day period
References
15
Case No. LBO 0365278, LBO 0381401, LBO 0373147
Regular
Aug 12, 2008

JANIE LEWINGS vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted RS Medical's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding a previous Order of Dismissal. The WCJ acknowledged overlooking the applicant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, which rendered the dismissal improper as it was issued before proper objection time under CCP 1013. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

RS MedicalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalWCJmedical-legal costsCCP 1013Declaration of Readiness to Proceedrescindedreturned to trial level
References
1
Case No. ADJ984305
En Banc
Sep 17, 2015

JOANN MATUTE vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board held that the term 'mailing' in Labor Code section 4610.6(h) is equivalent to 'service by mail,' thus the 30-day period to file an appeal from an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination is extended by five days under C.C.P. section 1013(a), making the applicant's appeal timely.

IMR determinationservice by mailC.C.P. section 1013(a)Labor Code section 4610.6(h)Appeals Board en banctimeliness of appealutilization reviewAdministrative DirectorWCJPetition for Reconsideration
References
10
Case No. SFO 406432
Regular
Apr 09, 2008

VANCOIS D'AMOUN vs. PACIUFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The petition failed to meet the 20-day statutory deadline under Labor Code § 5903, plus the additional 5 days for mailing under Code of Civil Procedure §1013, and was not filed in the correct office. Consequently, the WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report and ordered the petition dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10840Lab. Code §5903Code of Civil Procedure §1013untimelydismissReport and Recommendationadministrative law judgeworkers' compensationapplicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ3140199 (RIV 0068905) ADJ966589 (RIV 0068906) ADJ3180444 (RIV 0068982)
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

JOSE L. JARA vs. IMPERIAL WESTERN PRODUCTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jose L. Jara's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition was untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Findings and Award was issued on October 18, 2013. This timeframe violates Labor Code section 5903 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 regarding timely reconsideration filings. Consequently, the WCAB has ordered the dismissal of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Administrative Law JudgeRecord ReviewOrder
References
0
Case No. ADJ7103630
Regular
May 21, 2012

DENISE SANCHES vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves Denise Sanches' workers' compensation claim against the County of Sacramento. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sanches' Petition for Removal as untimely. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed on March 8, 2012, which was more than the allowed 25 days after the February 13, 2012, decision. This delay violated the time limits prescribed by 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 10843 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1013.

Petition for RemovalUntimelyDecision DateFiling Date25 Days20 Days8 Cal. Code Regs. 10843Code of Civil Procedure § 1013Served by MailDismissed
References
0
Case No. VNO 0397500, VNO 0538311
Regular
Sep 18, 2007

Rachel Akman vs. Ronald Faulk, Esq., Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the defendant, Ronald Faulk, was denied due process by not being allowed to cross-examine the disability evaluator. The Board found that defendant's objection was timely filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, extending the response time by five days. Therefore, the prior award was rescinded and the case returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including the cross-examination of the evaluator.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRonald Faulk EsqUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundJoint Findings and Awardindustrial injuriesbilateral upper and lower extremitiesbackneckknees72% permanent disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ2732539 (LAO0871611)
Regular
Oct 28, 2008

CESAR MERIDA vs. M.C. GILL CORPORATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for removal because it was filed after the statutory deadline. The petition challenged a change of venue order, but defendant's counsel failed to file within the twenty-day period prescribed by WCAB Rule 10843(b), extended by five days for mail service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a). Consequently, the matter remains transferred to the San Bernardino district office.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueUntimely PetitionWCAB Rule 10843(b)Code of Civil Procedure 1013(a)Five-Day ExtensionService by MailDismissedReturned to Trial LevelSan Bernardino District Office
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 22 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