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. ADJ11590945
Regular
Jan 16, 2020

SHIN SHEN TAI, SHIANG MEEI HEH vs. NANTERO INC., AMERICAN GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE, ZURICH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Shin Shen Tai's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The WCAB reiterated that petitions for reconsideration must be *received* by the Board within the 25-day statutory limit, with limited extensions. Proof of mailing alone is insufficient to meet this jurisdictional requirement. As the petition was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision, the WCAB lacked authority to consider it.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCJ DecisionService by MailProof of FilingAppeals Board AuthorityWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845
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. 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. ADJ310227 (STK 0198911)
Regular
Apr 30, 2010

Sergio Pulido vs. Kraft Foods, ESIS

This case involves a lien claimant, National DrugWorks, seeking reconsideration of an order imposing sanctions for failure to appear at a hearing they initiated. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely because it was filed 42 days after the order, exceeding the 25-day statutory limit. The Board emphasized that this time limit is jurisdictional. Consequently, the lien claimant's petition was dismissed.

WCABLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Declaration of Readiness to ProceedUntimely PetitionAppeal BoardJurisdictional Time LimitDismissal
References
2
Case No. ADJ1918054 (SRO 0120568) ADJ6595854
Regular
Nov 03, 2015

Raymond Trimmer vs. Stockham and Parker Construction, Inc., State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Raymond Trimmer's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition was not filed within the statutory 25-day limit after the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision. The board emphasized that timely filing means actual receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing. Because the petition was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision, it was untimely and jurisdictionally barred.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessDismissalWCJ DecisionFiling DeadlineJurisdictional LimitService by MailProof of MailingAppeals BoardLabor Code
References
4
Case No. ADJ9539099, ADJ9471386
Regular
Jun 13, 2018

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. TAYLOR GUITARS aka TAYLOR LUSTIG, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jose Martinez's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed untimely. California law allows 25 days from service of a decision to file, with an extension if the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, but this time limit is jurisdictional. The petition was filed on May 2, 2018, which was more than 25 days after the WCJ's March 26, 2018 decision. As the petition was not filed within the statutory period, the WCAB lacked authority to consider its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWCAB RulesLabor CodeJurisdictional LimitDismissalService by MailProof of FilingAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
4
Case No. ADJ10507545, ADJ10391856
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

LUIS GONZALEZ, Deceased, HORTENSIA SOTO, Widow, MANUEL MEZA SOTO, Dependent vs. FOUNDATION BUILDING MATERIALS, LLC, AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed on August 13, 2019, which was more than 25 days after the WCJ's July 18, 2019 decision. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within 25 days of service by mail, with extensions only for weekends or holidays, and filing means receipt by the Board, not just mailing. The Board lacks jurisdiction to consider untimely petitions as the time limit is jurisdictional. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyJurisdictionalWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845Lab. Code §§ 5900Lab. Code § 5903Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDismissed
References
4
Case No. ADJ12634746
Regular
Nov 07, 2025

BLANCA ARRIOLA vs. OAK VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, BETA HEALTHCARE GROUP

The applicant, Blanca Arriola, filed a pro per Petition for Reconsideration on August 25, 2025, challenging a decision from June 20, 2025, despite being represented by counsel. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the petition to be untimely, as it exceeded the 25-day statutory limit for filing. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction. The decision also clarified recent amendments to Labor Code section 5909 concerning the Appeals Board's 60-day action period and notification requirements for case transmission.

Petition for ReconsiderationPro Per FilingUntimely PetitionLabor Code § 5909Appeals BoardTransmission of CaseElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Case EventsProof of ServiceReport
References
9
Case No. ADJ7490731
Regular
Aug 07, 2013

JORGE PEREZ vs. SAN GABRIEL INSULATION, CHARTIS

This case concerns lien claimants whose liens were dismissed with prejudice for failing to appear at a lien conference and not objecting within the prescribed ten days. The lien claimants sought reconsideration, arguing a clerical error caused their non-appearance and that service of the dismissal order was defective as delegated to the defendant. However, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely filed, exceeding the 25-day statutory limit for reconsideration after service of the April 25, 2013 order. The Board found the order was properly considered a notice of intention, allowing delegation of service, and the lien claimants were properly charged with receipt of the dismissal.

Lien claimantsReconsiderationDismissalClerical errorService delegationWCAB Rule 10349Notice of intentionWCAB Rule 10500(a)Timely objectionCompromise and Release Agreement
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,090 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