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

Casey v. D'Elia

The petitioner sought medical assistance for her hospitalized husband, but her application was denied by the Nassau County Department of Social Services due to perceived excess resources and improper calculation of expenses. The petitioner was also not informed of her right to a fair hearing. The State Commissioner of Social Services affirmed the denial and ruled that the initial denial was beyond review due to a missed 60-day request window. The court found that the local agency erred in calculating the petitioner's expenses and in failing to consider unpaid medical bills. Furthermore, the court determined that the 60-day limitation period should be tolled because the petitioner was never properly notified of it. Consequently, the court annulled the State Commissioner's determination and remitted the matter to the local agency to re-evaluate the petitioner's eligibility for medical assistance.

Medical AssistanceSocial Services LawCPLR Article 78Eligibility for BenefitsResource CalculationFair Hearing NoticeTolling of LimitationsAdministrative ReviewRemittal for ReconsiderationHospitalization Costs
References
7
Case No. ADJ3423900 (ANA 0320773)
Regular
Sep 16, 2009

Donna Smith vs. Neiman Marcus, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its decision regarding Donna Smith's claim against Neiman Marcus and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Although applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely filed, it was not brought to the Board's attention within the statutory 60-day period due to administrative oversight. The Board, applying due process principles and citing relevant case law, determined that the 60-day review period begins when the Board has actual notice of the petition. Therefore, the untimely review of the petition led to its denial on the merits, upholding the WCJ's previous decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code §5909Due ProcessShipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.State Farm Fire and Casualty v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Stipulated AwardFraudMisrepresentationMutual Mistake of Fact
References
2
Case No. ADJ4016078 (VNO 0461399)
Regular
Oct 10, 2014

David Snow vs. South Coast Sheet Metal, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant's petition for reconsideration of a stipulated workers' compensation award was dismissed as untimely, filed 33 days after the award was served. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration on its own motion within the 60-day statutory period. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the case to the judge for further proceedings. This action bypasses the applicant's tardy petition while allowing the Board to review the case based on the applicant's claims of pressure and lack of prior medical evaluation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated AwardIndustrial InjuryRight Lower ExtremityReflex Sympathetic DystrophyHerniaTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityUntimely Petition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 1974

Russell v. Dumpson

Petitioner (Mrs. Russell) initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge a May 9, 1974 decision by the New York State Department of Social Services, which affirmed the denial of retroactive public assistance by the New York City Department of Social Services. The petitioner and her husband had taken two children, Harry and Kennedy Drayton, into their home based on assurances from a social services employee that assistance would be provided. Despite filing an application and making numerous inquiries, assistance for the period the children resided with them was denied, and only later partially granted for one child. The respondents denied retroactive assistance, citing regulations that assistance meets current needs and the petitioner's alleged failure to request a fair hearing within 60 days. The court found errors of law in the respondents' decision, ruling that the Department could not penalize the petitioners for its own inaction and that the 60-day period did not commence without written notification. Consequently, the court annulled the decision and directed respondents to issue a retroactive grant of assistance to the petitioner.

Public AssistanceRetroactive GrantArticle 78 ProceedingSocial Services LawFair HearingAdministrative ReviewDue ProcessAgency InactionChildren's WelfareState Regulations
References
6
Case No. ADJ12849972
Regular
May 19, 2025

Mimi Htut vs. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Mimi Htut against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The Board found the petition to be untimely, having been filed on March 13, 2025, which was more than 30 days after the Findings of Fact and Award was served on December 31, 2024, despite an extension period for out-of-state recipients. Furthermore, the Board stated that even if the petition had met the jurisdictional time limits, it would have been denied on the merits, as the administrative law judge's reliance on reports from the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Brian Jacks, was considered substantial medical evidence. This decision also highlighted recent amendments to Labor Code section 5909 concerning the Appeals Board's 60-day timeframe for acting on reconsideration petitions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)TransmissionNoticeReport and RecommendationFindings of Fact and Award (F&A)Jurisdictional
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
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. ADJ7199986 ADJ7399845
Regular
Oct 03, 2011

ELMIRA SMITH vs. PACIFIC AUTISM CENTER FOR EDUCATION, TRI- STAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant sought removal to challenge a finding that defendant's requested Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel was properly assigned. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the finding, and determined that *neither* panel was properly assigned. Both panel requests were found to be premature as they were made before the statutory 10-day period for agreeing on an Agreed Medical Evaluator had expired, plus an additional five days for mail service. This decision clarifies the timing requirements for QME panel requests following an unsuccessful attempt to select an AME.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Labor Code section 4062.2(b)WCAB Rule 10507Messele v. Pitco FoodsInc.Premature RequestPanel AssignmentMedical Unit
References
2
Case No. ADJ9123534
Regular
Jul 18, 2015

PHILLIP WARD vs. CITY OF FORT BRAGG, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended an award, finding the defendant liable for a 15% increase in permanent disability benefits. This increase is due to the defendant's failure to offer the applicant qualified work within 60 days of his permanent and stationary status, as required by Labor Code section 4658(d)(2). While the applicant had retired, the Board found this did not excuse the employer from making a compliant work offer. The amended order clarifies the increase applies only to payments made 60 days after the Qualified Medical Evaluator's permanent and stationary report.

Labor Code section 4658(d)(2)permanent disability increaseoffer of workmodified workalternative workregular workpermanent and stationary60-day periodretirementCalPERS
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spira v. Ethical Culture School

Bernard R. Spira, a plaintiff, sued his former employer, Ethical Culture School, and three individuals for age discrimination. He filed the complaint with the EEOC in September 1992 and received a 'Right-to-Sue' letter on November 8, 1994, which stated a 90-day period to file suit. Spira filed suit on March 7, 1995, approximately 114 calendar days after receipt. He argued that an EEOC worker orally misinformed him that the 90-day period was in working days, not calendar days. The defendants moved to dismiss based on the failure to comply with the 90-day limitations period. The court granted the motion, finding no extraordinary circumstances or affirmative misconduct by the EEOC to warrant equitable tolling of the limitations period.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingEEOC ProceduresRight-to-Sue LetterMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Affirmative MisconductFederal Courts
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 5,024 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