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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Logan v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.

The claimant, a medical surgery technician, initially reported a left knee injury after slipping on a wet floor on November 25, 2010. Nearly a year later, in September 2011, she filed a claim for additional injuries to her right knee, neck, back, and bilateral shoulders resulting from the same incident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed these additional claims due to lack of timely written notice as per Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. However, both a Board panel and the full Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently excused the claimant's late notice, interpreting the statute to require employer knowledge of the accident, not each specific injury. The self-insured employer appealed, contending that "knowledge of the accident" should be construed as "knowledge of the injury," but the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the plain meaning and distinct statutory usage of "accident" and "injury."

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAccident vs. InjuryStatutory ConstructionPlain Meaning RuleLegislative IntentNew York LawAppellate Division
References
13
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coffey v. Shop-Rite Supermarkets North

On December 20, 2004, a claimant sustained a hip injury after slipping and falling at work. Although Workers' Compensation Law § 18 requires written notice within 30 days, the claimant filed her report approximately four months later. The Workers’ Compensation Board excused this delay, finding that the employer had actual knowledge of the accident because a coworker witnessed it and informed the assistant manager, who then aided the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant discussed her injury with the employer's manager in January 2005. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that actual knowledge on the part of the employer negates the requirement for timely written notice.

Workers CompensationHip InjurySlip and FallNotice RequirementActual KnowledgeEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionTimely NoticeExcused Notice
References
2
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
Mar 23, 1995

Wood v. Irving

A Rochester police officer, temporarily assigned as a detective for over 18 months, was granted a permanent appointment to detective based on Civil Service Law § 58 (4) (c). The City of Rochester challenged this, arguing the law violated the New York Constitution's article V, § 6, which requires merit-based appointments by competitive examination where practicable. The Supreme Court granted the officer's petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that Civil Service Law § 58 (4) (c) is unconstitutional because it mandates a permanent appointment without a legislative determination of the impracticability of competitive testing, thus violating the constitutional merit and fitness requirement. The Court held that despite good intentions, the statute effectively allowed a preferential appointment, circumventing the competitive examination process applicable to others seeking the detective rank.

Civil Service LawConstitutional LawMerit and Fitness ClauseCompetitive ExaminationPolice PromotionDetective AppointmentLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewImpracticability of TestingArticle V Section 6
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1997

United States v. Machi

Salvatore Machi, a former food service foreman, received over $122,000 in worker's compensation payments for a back injury from 1990 to 1996 while operating limousine businesses. He misrepresented his employment status on OWCP forms. The case concerns the appropriate offense level under Sentencing Guidelines for conspiracy and substantive violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1920. The dispute centers on whether Mr. Machi's conduct before September 30, 1994, was criminalized under the pre-amendment version of Section 1920, which applied only to reports "required by section 8106" of title 5. The judge adopted the defendant's argument that, as a temporarily totally disabled individual, section 8106 did not require him to file the forms, thus the pre-amendment statute did not apply to his conduct. Consequently, the loss amount for guideline determination was reduced, resulting in a lower offense level and a sentence of one month imprisonment, two years supervised release, and $40,000 restitution.

Sentencing GuidelinesWorker's Compensation Fraud18 U.S.C. § 1920 AmendmentFalse StatementsFederal Employees Compensation ActTemporarily Totally DisabledSection 8106 RequirementOffense Level CalculationRestitution OrderSupervised Release
References
6
Case No. ADJ8336163
Regular
Mar 13, 2017

JOSE QUINONES vs. ALCOA FASTENING SYSTEMS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT

This case involved a defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding a workers' compensation award for psychological injury. The defendant argued the claim was barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d), requiring six months of employment before a psyche injury. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant had accumulated over six months of employment. The Board relied on the plain language of the statute, which does not require the six months to be continuous or immediately preceding the date of injury. Therefore, the applicant's claim was not barred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ8336163Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardpsyche injuryLabor Code section 3208.3(d)six month ruleAOE/COEReport and RecommendationLockheed Martin vs. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McCullough)
References
1
Case No. ADJ4521232 (MON 026903)
Regular
May 10, 2010

DELFINA MARTINEZ vs. TARRANT APPAREL dba FASHION RESOURCE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

This case concerns applicant Delfina Martinez's psychiatric injury claim against Tarrant Apparel, which was initially denied due to less than six months of direct employment, as required by Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Martinez's prior employment as a special employee for Tarrant Apparel for over six months, through a staffing agency, satisfied the statutory requirement. The Board held that the time spent as a special employee counts towards the six-month employment period for the purpose of psychiatric injury claims. Therefore, the prior decision barring the claim was rescinded, and the case was returned for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 3208.3psychiatric injuryspecial employeegeneral employerspecial employerjoint employmentsix-month rulefashion resourcepersonnel plusindustrial injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ9873554
Regular
Feb 05, 2016

DINO MONTEVERDE vs. WATERMARK CAPITAL, HARTFORD SACRAMENTO

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denying his claim for psychiatric injury. The primary issue was whether the applicant's employment duration met the six-month threshold required by Labor Code section 3208.3(d) for psychiatric claims. The Board upheld the judge's finding that the applicant did not meet this requirement, as his employment lasted less than six months. Therefore, reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injurysix-month employment requirementindustrial injuryAOE/COEpetition for reconsiderationdenial of petitioninside salespersonV.A. treatment
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 6,109 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