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. ADJ3859668
Regular
Sep 05, 2014

GUY CULVER vs. TERRY DAY, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES/IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Guy Culver's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely filed. The Board found the petition was filed more than 25 days after the original order, exceeding the statutory 20-day limit plus 5 days for mailing. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013DismissalApplicantDefendantState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hart v. Pageprint/Dekalb

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed a late payment penalty on an employer's carrier. The claimant, suffering from permanent partial disability due to bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, entered into a waiver agreement with the carrier for $35,200. Although the Board approved the agreement without a hearing, the carrier paid the claimant 20 days after approval, exceeding the 10-day limit, leading to a $7,040 penalty. The appellate court found the streamlined procedures used for approval invalid because they conflicted with 12 NYCRR 300.36, meaning the agreement was never properly approved and thus the 10-day limitations period for payment never commenced. Consequently, the penalty imposition was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Board for a proper hearing on the agreement.

Workers' Compensation Law § 32Late Payment PenaltyWaiver AgreementBoard ApprovalStreamlined ProceduresAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewRemandWorkers' Compensation BoardOccupational Disease
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. ADJ4007294 (MON 0334145) ADJ2373036 (MON 0334144)
Regular
Jun 19, 2009

VERONICA RODRIGUEZ, vs. RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY and SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT,

Here's a summary for a lawyer, in four sentences maximum: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed 41 days after the May 14, 2009, Findings of Fact and Order, exceeding the 20-day statutory limit plus any mailing extensions. The WCAB emphasized that the time limit for filing is jurisdictional, rendering the late petition void. Consequently, the Board lacked the power to grant the untimely reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903WCAB Rule 10507Jurisdictional Time LimitFindings of Fact and OrderLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeDismissal OrderService by Mail
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Perico

This case addresses the defendants' Perico and Andriano's motion to dismiss an information. The defendants argued that the prosecution for Workers' Compensation Law §§ 50 and 52 violations was untimely, having been filed two years and two days after the alleged misdemeanor, exceeding the two-year statute of limitations for misdemeanors. They also contended the information was insufficient due to the absence of certified Workers' Compensation Board awards. The People opposed, arguing the statute of limitations defense was waived for not being raised within pretrial motion deadlines. The court held that the Statute of Limitations defense is a jurisdictional right, waivable only at trial or upon a guilty plea, not automatically by CPL 255.20's time limits. Furthermore, the court found the information fatally defective due to the lack of prima facie evidence. Consequently, the information against both defendants was dismissed.

Criminal ProcedureStatute of LimitationsDismissalAccusatory InstrumentInformation InsufficiencyWaiverJurisdictional RightMisdemeanorPretrial MotionsPlea of Guilty
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

CARLETHAUS HOPPER vs. KELLY SERVICES, ESIS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed as untimely. The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) found that the petition was filed more than 25 days after the original decision, exceeding the jurisdictional 20-day limit with a 5-day allowance for mailing. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the power to grant the petition, regardless of its merits, and dismissed it.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903WCAB Rule 10507Jurisdictional Time LimitDismissal OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge ReportService by MailOfficial Address Record
References
0
Case No. LBO 0359639
Regular
Aug 28, 2007

TOMAS GARCIA vs. A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed A. Teichert & Son's petition for removal as untimely. The petition was filed 62 days after the Notice of Hearing, exceeding the 20-day limit for removal petitions. Even if considered on its merits, the employer waived any venue objections by failing to object within the statutory 30-day period after receiving notice of the case.

Petition for RemovalAsbestos CalendarLabor Code Section 5500.5VenueApplicant's AttorneyWCAB Rule 10843(b)Untimely PetitionOrder Joining Party DefendantVenue ObjectionLabor Code Section 5501.5(a)(3)
References
0
Case No. ADJ8061119
Regular
Aug 31, 2012

ANGEL LEAUPEPETELE vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Angel Leaupepetele's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed more than 25 days after the original Findings and Order, exceeding the statutory 20-day limit plus 5 days for mailing. Even if timely, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits based on the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Findings and OrderApplicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ7020366
Regular
Aug 22, 2013

OCTAVIO GONZALEZ vs. BODEGA LATHE CORPORATION, PACIFIC COMP INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Octavio Gonzalez's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was submitted more than 25 days after the administrative law judge's decision, exceeding the 20-day statutory limit, which can be extended by five days for mail. Because the deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional, the Board lacked the authority to consider it. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits as well.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingJurisdictional time limitLabor Code section 5903Administrative Law JudgeWCJ's Report and RecommendationMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. HaglerScott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,974 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