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. ADJ8730224
Regular
Dec 15, 2016

SERGIO BERMUDEZ vs. CERRITOS AUTO REPAIR CENTER, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Tri County Medical Group's (TCMG) petition for reconsideration of a finding that its lien claim was barred by the 18-month limitation in Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board majority held that because TCMG's last date of service was January 29, 2015, after the July 1, 2013 effective date for the shorter period, the 18-month limit applied. TCMG's lien was filed over 18 months after this last date of service and was therefore untimely. A dissenting commissioner argued that for continuously provided services crossing the July 1, 2013 date, the three-year limit should apply to avoid requiring multiple lien filings.

Labor Code Section 4903.5(a)lien claim18-month limitation periodthree-year limitation perioddate services were providedlast date of servicecontinuously provided servicespetition for reconsiderationdenial of lienWCJ report
References
19
Case No. ADJ8969504
Regular
Sep 12, 2016

GLADYS PAZ, vs. TECH FLEX; SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, TRI-COUNTY MEDICAL GROUP

This case concerns the timeliness of a lien claim filed by Tri-County Medical Group for services rendered to applicant Gladys Paz. The lien was filed on October 19, 2015, more than 18 months after the last date of service on December 23, 2013. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the lien is barred by the 18-month limitation period in Labor Code section 4903.5(a) for services provided on or after July 1, 2013. The Board found that the amended statute applied and lien claimant had a reasonable time to file within 18 months of their last service date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4903.5(a)Statute of LimitationsReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeContinuous ServicesEffective DateRetroactive Application
References
11
Case No. ADJ8904484
Regular
Mar 13, 2017

MIGUEL CERDA vs. LIVING OPPORTUNITIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a finding that their lien was barred by the statute of limitations under Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board determined that the 18-month filing deadline applied because the claimant's last date of service was after July 1, 2013, and the lien was filed approximately twenty months after that date. The Board rejected the claimant's argument that a three-year limit should apply due to continuous service before and after July 1, 2013, citing precedent establishing the last date of service as the relevant date for the statute of limitations. Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that the three-year period should apply to continuous service before and after the July 1, 2013 date to avoid requiring multiple lien filings.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)statute of limitationslien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardadministrative law judgetimely filingcontinuous serviceslast date of service
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1999

Doolittle v. County of Broome

Petitioner, a former correction officer, appealed the dismissal of her CPLR article 78 application challenging a determination that granted General Municipal Law § 207-c disability benefits for a limited period. The Supreme Court dismissed her application as untimely, finding it was filed beyond the four-month Statute of Limitations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the petition was time-barred as the attorney received notice of the determination more than four months before filing. The court also noted that, even on the merits, the Hearing Officer's determination of limited benefits for an eight-month period, based on a work-related psychological injury, was supported by sufficient evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsStatute of LimitationsCPLR Article 78Administrative LawProcedural DismissalJudicial ReviewMental HealthWorkplace StressCorrection Officer
References
6
Case No. ADJ8759866
Regular
Sep 01, 2016

ERNESTINA ESCAMILLA vs. PELICAN PRODUCTS, INC., UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case addresses a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a denied lien. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that the lien was barred by Labor Code section 4903.5(a)'s 18-month limitations period. The Board ruled that because services were provided after July 1, 2013, the lien claimant was obligated to file within 18 months of the last service date, which they failed to do. The Board reasoned that the statute provided reasonable time for filing after its enactment.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)lien claimantreconsideration18-month limitation periodJuly 12013reasonable timeretroactive applicationproceduralvocational rehabilitation
References
10
Case No. ADJ9000676
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

MIGUEL VILLEGAS vs. ALL STAR SECURITY, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involved a Petition for Reconsideration by All Star Security and its insurer, challenging a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB denied the petition, adopting the administrative law judge's reasoning that the lien claimant failed to file within the amended 18-month statute of limitations under Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board found that applying this shortened period was proper as the claimant had a reasonable time to file after the amendment's effective date. This decision aligns with prior WCAB panel decisions regarding the retroactive application of shortened limitations periods in workers' compensation cases.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMiguel VillegasAll Star SecurityEverest National Insurance CompanyGallagher Bassett ServicesInc.WCJ reportKindelberger v. City of Los AngelesGuerrero v. Easy Staffing
References
12
Case No. ADJ8964113
Regular
Jun 24, 2016

LISA LIU vs. ADVENTURER HOTEL, TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claim filed by Tri-County Medical Group for services provided to applicant Lisa Liu. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the lien, finding it was filed untimely beyond the 18-month statutory limit. The lien claimant appealed, arguing the filing date of February 2, 2015, was within the period because the 18-month deadline of February 1, 2015, fell on a Sunday, extending the filing to the next business day. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the ALJ's order, and found the lien timely filed. The Board determined that per procedural rules, when the last day falls on a weekend, the deadline extends to the next business day.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.5(b)Statute of Limitations18-month periodRules of Practice and ProcedureBusiness DayEAMS RecordJudicial Notice
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05907 [164 AD3d 43]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2018

AWI Sec. & Investigators, Inc. v. Whitestone Constr. Corp.

This case concerns a dispute between AWI Security and Investigations, Inc. (AWI), a subcontractor, and Whitestone Construction Corp. (Whitestone), a general contractor, over unpaid security services for public construction projects. Whitestone moved to dismiss AWI's action, citing a contractual six-month limitations period that it claimed began in April 2012. AWI appealed the Supreme Court's decision, arguing that the limitations period was unenforceable because Whitestone had stated that payment was contingent on the resolution of a separate prevailing wage class action. Citing precedent, the Appellate Division found that Whitestone's position nullified the contractual limitations period, as it created a scenario where AWI would be forced to sue for a claim that was not yet ripe. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying Whitestone's motion to dismiss the action as time-barred.

Contractual Limitations PeriodStatute of LimitationsSubcontractor PaymentPublic Construction ProjectCondition PrecedentAccrual of Cause of ActionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewRipeness of ClaimIndemnity Provision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelly v. Cesarano, Haque & Khan, P. C.

Plaintiff sued an accounting firm for malpractice, alleging negligent advice regarding estate taxes which led her to pay $32,761. The defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing it was barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214 [6]). The plaintiff's claim accrued on April 14, 1994, before the amendment to CPLR 214 (6) which shortened the limitation period from six to three years for such claims. While prior rulings allowed a six-year period if the suit was commenced before the amendment's effective date, the court found the plaintiff's filing on October 29, 1997, was untimely. The court determined that even with a reasonable grace period post-amendment, the plaintiff failed to file within the three-year limit or a reasonable six-month window after the amendment's effective date, thus granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Accountant MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentBreach of ContractNegligence ClaimEstate Tax LiabilityMotion to DismissTimeliness of ActionRetroactive ApplicationDue Process Considerations
References
12
Case No. ADJ9825294 ADJ8708979
Regular
Feb 21, 2017

JOSUE CASTILLO vs. FG PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE/FARMERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision barring a lien claim by Tri-County Medical Group. The WCAB found that the lien for services rendered between January 9, 2013, and July/August 2014 was untimely filed more than 18 months after the last date of service, per Labor Code section 4903.5(a). Despite the lien claimant's argument that services began before July 1, 2013, triggering a three-year statute of limitations, the WCAB applied the 18-month limit based on the last date of service being after July 1, 2013. The WCAB upheld prior precedent finding this interpretation reasonable and rejected the unconstitutional vagueness argument.

Labor Code § 4903.5(a)Lien ClaimStatute of LimitationsPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardContinuous TreatmentDate of Service18-Month Period3-Year PeriodUnconstitutionally Vague
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,133 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