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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2002

Johnson v. Shelmar Corp.

Claimant suffered work-related injuries in 1993, leading to a settlement approved on September 12, 2001, under Workers’ Compensation Law § 32. The settlement funds were mailed on September 24, 2001. Claimant sought a 20% penalty, arguing the payment was late according to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f) and 12 NYCRR 300.36 (g), as it exceeded the 10-day period post-approval. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this penalty. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, applying General Construction Law § 25-a (1), which extends deadlines falling on a Saturday to the next business day, thus making the September 24th payment timely. The court also noted that the Board could have exercised discretion to waive the deadline due to the operational disruptions caused by the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Late Payment PenaltyWorkers' Compensation SettlementStatutory Deadline ExtensionGeneral Construction LawRule DiscretionSeptember 11 Attacks ImpactTimeliness of PaymentAdministrative HearingWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ3357951
Regular
Jul 02, 2013

BENNY ANDRADE vs. KELLY SERVICES, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Benny Andrade's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on May 15, 2013, which was over 25 days after the WCJ's decision was served on May 23, 2008. Labor Code section 5903 sets a strict 20-day deadline for reconsideration petitions, extendable by five days for mailing. As the deadline is jurisdictional, the Board lacked the power to grant the untimely petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessLabor Code 5903JurisdictionalWCJ DecisionAppeals BoardDismissedService of OrderFiling DateMail Extension
References
0
Case No. ADJ1218145
Regular
Oct 14, 2010

LOWELL FORD, SR. vs. WILLIAM WEST, EMPLOYERS INSURANCE GROUP

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision. California Labor Code section 5903 sets a strict 20-day filing deadline, extendable by five days for mailing, and this deadline is jurisdictional. Because the petition did not meet the filing requirements, the WCAB lacked the power to grant it.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalLabor Code section 5903Jurisdictional Time LimitWCJ's DecisionService of AwardMailing ExtensionCode of Civil Procedure 1013WCAB Rule 10507
References
6
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. ADJ7128820
Regular
Mar 26, 2018

Carlos Hernandez Moreno vs. Pavor Decor Masonry, Inc., Insurance Company of the West

This case involved a petition for reconsideration filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board dismissed the petition because it was filed late, ten days after the statutory deadline. California law dictates that a petition for reconsideration must be *received* by the Board within 25 days of service, not just mailed. As the petition was filed after this jurisdictional deadline, the Board lacked the authority to consider it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictionalWCJOrder Dismissing LienService by Mail
References
4
Case No. ADJ6767649, ADJ9762560
Regular
Oct 01, 2015

SHARON COTTERELL vs. NORWALK LA MIRADA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Sharon Cotterell's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The WCAB emphasized that the 25-day filing deadline is jurisdictional and requires actual receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing. Because the petition was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider its merits. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as procedurally defective.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalJurisdictionalWCJService by MailCalifornia Labor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsAppeals Board Rule
References
4
Case No. ADJ8013755
Regular
Mar 29, 2017

JOONG YEOL LEE vs. BCD TOFU HOUSE; TOWER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The defendant had 25 days from service of the Findings and Award to file, with mail service extending the deadline. However, the petition was received by the Board one day *after* the filing deadline. Filing proof of mailing within the period is insufficient; the petition must be received by the Board. Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition due to its tardiness.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJFindings and AwardLab. CodeCal. Code Regs.JurisdictionalDate of Filing
References
4
Case No. ADJ10221419
Regular
Mar 16, 2017

CLORIAN MIHELE vs. HEALTHPOINTE MEDICAL GROUP, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. California law allows 25 days for filing, with mail service extended to the next business day if the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday. Crucially, the petition must be *received* by the WCAB within this period, not just mailed. The defendant's petition, filed January 18, 2017, was received after the December 27, 2016 deadline.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCJ DecisionMailing vs. FilingAppeals Board AuthorityLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
4
Case No. ADJ9260738
Regular
Apr 21, 2016

DANIELA RODRIGUEZ vs. DOS GRINGOS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation matter, the applicant's Petition for Removal was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the 25-day deadline for removal petitions served by mail in California. The Board noted that the petition was filed over 25 days after the served decision, making it late. Furthermore, the Board indicated that even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits according to the WCJ's report.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingWCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10392Non-final decisionAdministrative Law JudgeService by Mail
References
0
Case No. ADJ8069354, ADJ9287572
Regular
Oct 23, 2015

JOSIE QUINTERO vs. WESTERN HEALTHCARE CENTER, TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Josie Quintero's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the jurisdictional 25-day deadline after the WCJ's decision. The WCAB emphasized that a petition must be received by the Board within the timeframe, not merely mailed. Because the petition was filed on September 2, 2015, more than 25 days after the August 4, 2015 decision, it was deemed untimely and therefore dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitService by MailWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10392Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeFinal Decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,721 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