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
May 07, 2007

Lentz v. Spanky's Restaurant II, Inc.

This Amended Order addresses a plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The plaintiff, a waiter, alleges that defendants Spanky’s Restaurant II, Inc. d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse, Lisa West, and Lady West Enterprises, LTD d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse violated FLSA by requiring waitstaff to participate in a "tip pool" with expediters who do not customarily receive tips and by failing to display required notice. The court, considering both the Lusardi and Shushan approaches to class certification, denied the plaintiff's motion. The denial was based on the plaintiff's failure to identify a sufficient number of similarly situated individuals and to provide adequate factual evidence beyond conclusory allegations. The court also noted the novelty of defining expediters' eligibility for tip-sharing and concerns about the breadth of the proposed notice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members was denied.

FLSACollective ActionTip PoolingClass CertificationSimilarly SituatedWage and HourEmployment LawFair Labor Standards ActNotice RequirementsDenial of Motion
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Miller v. North Shore University Hospital

Claimant, a registered nurse, allegedly exacerbated an abdominal injury in September 1994 while at work, but did not file a workers' compensation claim until May 1996, after undergoing surgery. The workers' compensation carrier subsequently controverted the claim, citing untimely notice. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant failed to provide timely notice to the employer as mandated by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the emergency room report was insufficient to constitute proper notice. Furthermore, the claimant did not meet his burden of proving that the employer was not prejudiced by the delay in notice, as the delay prevented an investigation prior to his surgery.

Timely NoticeEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceAbdominal InjuryRegistered NurseAccident ReportEmergency RoomSurgeryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 18
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2002

Alexander v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed the denial of the petitioner's application for leave to file a late notice of claim. The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay, did not establish that the respondents had timely notice of the facts, and could not show that the respondents would not be substantially prejudiced. The excuse of awaiting an accident report was deemed unreasonable as the petitioner already possessed necessary information. Furthermore, the workers' compensation report allegedly filed by the employer did not adequately disclose the basis for liability. The substantial passage of time since February 2001 prejudiced the respondents' ability to investigate alleged ladder defects and collect witness testimony.

late notice of claimreasonable excuseprejudiceworkers' compensation reportaccident reportSupreme Courtdenial of applicationfailure to demonstrate noticeinvestigation impairmentwitness testimony
References
2
Case No. ADJ8693165
Regular
Sep 03, 2013

JEREMY VALENCIA vs. AGI PUBLISHING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an order imposing sanctions against the injured worker's attorney. This was due to improper service of the sanctions order and lack of sufficient notice, preventing the attorney from an adequate opportunity to be heard. The WCAB denied the petition for disqualification of the judge, finding no evidence of bias. The petition concerning the notice of intention to dismiss the case was dismissed as it was not a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsNotice of Intention to DismissWCJInjured WorkerCounselService of ProcessOfficial Address Record
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rankin v. Half Hollow Hills Central School District

Claimant, a school bus driver, suffered a work-related injury in November 2007 and filed for workers' compensation benefits in March 2008. The employer contested the claim, arguing that the claimant failed to provide timely written notice within 30 days as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 18. The Workers' Compensation Board, however, found that the claimant had given adequate oral notice and excused the failure to comply with the written notice statute, leading to the employer's appeal. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that failure to provide timely written notice can be excused if notice could not be given, the employer had knowledge, or the employer was not prejudiced. The court credited the claimant's testimony that she verbally informed both a bus dispatcher and her supervisor shortly after the accident, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's determination of adequate oral notice.

Workers' Compensation Law § 18Timely NoticeOral NoticeExcused NoticeEmployer KnowledgeAppellate DivisionSubstantial EvidenceBus DriverWork-related InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. SDO 0360376
Regular
Jul 29, 2008

RAUL VIGIL PERALTA vs. NEW VISION PRESTIGE REAL ESTATE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision that the defendant provided adequate notice of its Medical Provider Network (MPN). The applicant argued that insufficient notice should have resulted in a permanent waiver from the MPN, but the Board found that the applicant and his attorney received sufficient notice, including a guidebook and awareness of the option to select MPN physicians. Therefore, the applicant is required to treat within the defendant's MPN as of the date adequate notice was provided.

Medical Provider NetworkMPN noticepermanent waiveradequate noticepre-designate physiciancompensable consequenceindustrial injurypetition for reconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardWCJ
References
0
Case No. 10-01-00085-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2004

Mark Steward v. Colonial Casualty Insurance Company

Mark Steward appealed an order denying the reinstatement of his suit against Colonial Casualty Insurance Company, which had been dismissed for want of prosecution. Steward had initially filed a workers' compensation claim suit on March 3, 1998. The district court provided notice of potential dismissal in July 2000, and subsequently dismissed the suit in November 2000. Steward argued that he did not receive adequate notice and that his failure to act was not due to conscious indifference. The appellate court found that Steward did receive adequate notice under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(2) and that his arguments regarding conscious indifference, applicable to Rule 165a(1), were misapplied. Furthermore, Steward failed to demonstrate good cause for the two-year period of inactivity in his suit. The court concluded that his participation in the reinstatement hearing resolved any due process concerns, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionReinstatement of SuitAbuse of DiscretionAdequate NoticeDue ProcessTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 165aWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppellate ReviewJudicial Administration RulesConscious Indifference
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. ADJ3034844 (LBO 0392601) ADJ 4614655 (LBO 0396565)
Regular
Oct 17, 2014

ANGEL AVILA vs. PHILIPPS SERVICES CORPORATION, CIGA, SEDGWICK CMS, RELIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of orders dismissing lien claims from several medical providers. These lien claimants argued the dismissal was erroneous because they had not abandoned their liens and deserved a continued hearing to identify witnesses. The WCAB found the Petition for Reconsideration timely and determined that lien claimants may have been denied due process if their representative left the hearing prematurely without adequate notice. Therefore, the WCAB is providing an opportunity for lien claimants to demonstrate good cause why the dismissal orders should not be affirmed, and ordering the defendant to respond to any filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimsWCJDismissal of LiensMedical Lien ManagementRepresentative AbandonmentPrima Facie ShowingDue ProcessNotice of Intention to Dismiss
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation v. Aluminum Company of America

This case addresses whether an initial notice of claim for personal injuries against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is sufficient to cover a subsequent wrongful death claim when the injured party dies after the notice is served but before the lawsuit commences. George Andrucki, after being diagnosed with mesothelioma from asbestos exposure at the World Trade Center, served a notice of claim for personal injuries. He died before the lawsuit officially began, and his widow amended the complaint to include wrongful death and survivorship claims. The Appellate Division had ruled that a new notice of claim was required for the wrongful death action. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the original personal injury notice of claim was adequate, as the wrongful death action was fundamentally a continuation of the personal injury claim and the initial notice fulfilled its purpose of enabling investigation.

Notice of ClaimSovereign ImmunityWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaStatutory InterpretationCondition PrecedentCourt of Claims ActUnconsolidated Laws
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,939 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