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
Jan 19, 2011

Turner v. City of New York

Petitioner was injured on April 14, 2009, and initially believed their claim was covered by Workers' Compensation, delaying legal counsel until July 13, 2010. Counsel promptly served a notice of claim and sought an order to deem it timely filed nunc pro tunc. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted this motion. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed the decision, ruling that the application made on July 14, 2010, was untimely. The court determined that the one-year and 90-day limitations period, as outlined in General Municipal Law § 50-i (1) and General Construction Law §§ 20, 58, had expired on July 13, 2010, rendering the application one day too late.

Notice of ClaimTimelinessNunc Pro TuncGeneral Municipal LawGeneral Construction LawLimitations PeriodAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationTort ActionMunicipality
References
5
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
Mar 13, 2012

Thompson v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The defendants, Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority, MTA Staten Island Railway, and Tyesha Witt, appealed a Supreme Court order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury action as time-barred. The plaintiff's decedent was injured in a railway accident in February 2008 and filed a complaint in March 2009. The defendants argued the action was time-barred under Public Authorities Law § 1276, which mandates a one-year-and-30-day statute of limitations. The plaintiff, Sarah Thompson, argued the statute of limitations was tolled under CPLR 208 due to the decedent's alleged

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTime-barredCPLR 208Insanity TollPublic Authorities LawRailway AccidentAppellate ReviewLegal Procedure
References
9
Case No. ADJ8514033
Regular
Feb 28, 2014

ALLEN SCOTT CHANCE vs. TIME PRINTING, INC., SELECT INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration in this case. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision. California Labor Code and WCAB rules establish a jurisdictional 20-day deadline for filing, with a possible 5-day extension for mailing. The WCAB indicated that even if timely, the petition would have been denied based on the Administrative Law Judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Code Civ. Proc. § 1013WCAB Rule 10507Jurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and RecommendationDismissalApplicant
References
5
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. 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
Case No. ADJ2219719 (VNO 0499919)
Regular
Jul 02, 2009

ELMER COREAS vs. PEKING NOODLE COMPANY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The petition was dismissed as untimely because it was filed 29 days after the decision was served, exceeding the jurisdictional 20-day limit plus a potential 5-day mailing extension. The WCAB emphasized that filing deadlines are jurisdictional and that the Board lacks the power to grant untimely petitions. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits according to the WCJ's report.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDELMER COREASPEKING NOODLE COMPANYZENITH INSURANCE COMPANYADJ2219719VNO 0499919OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING RECONSIDERATIONpetition for reconsiderationuntimelyLabor Code section 5903
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 8,118 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