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. Docket No. 10
Regular Panel Decision

Zhong v. August August Corp.

Plaintiff Jian Zhong filed a class action against defendant August August Corp. alleging denial of overtime compensation and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Minimum Wage Act (NYMWA). Defendant August filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the FLSA overtime claims and related state law claims, but denied it in part, allowing the FLSA minimum wage claims and related state law claims to proceed. Plaintiff Zhong was granted leave to amend the complaint to address the deficiencies in the dismissed claims.

FLSANYMWAWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationMinimum Wage ViolationMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6) MotionLeave to AmendClass Action PotentialSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. ADJ1560764
Regular
Oct 02, 2014

DEBORAH THOMAS vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The defendant was personally served with the WCJ's orders on July 28, 2014, making the filing deadline August 18, 2014. The petition was not filed until August 22, 2014, exceeding the jurisdictional 20-day limit. Therefore, the Board lacked the authority to consider the petition, even though it would have been denied on the merits had it been timely.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Jurisdictional DeadlinePersonal ServiceMailing ExtensionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDismissalGovernment Entity Verification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1983

Claim of Palumbo v. Transport Masters International, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim due to late filing and lack of advance compensation payment. A subsequently located disability benefits file was reviewed by the Board in the interest of justice. However, the Board found no evidence within this file to indicate a claim for compensation was filed as required by section 28 of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that only questions of fact were presented. The court concluded that the Board's factual findings were conclusive as they were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' Compensation BoardClaim Filing DeadlineDisability Benefits FileSubstantial EvidenceQuestions of FactAppellate ReviewTime LimitationAdvance PaymentSection 28Administrative Review
References
1
Case No. AHM 0125151
Regular
Jul 12, 2007

DANNY MEDINA vs. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's petition. The dismissal was based on the applicant's petition for reconsideration being untimely, as the only filed petition was received by the WCAB on August 14, 2006, well after the deadline. Evidence, including proof of service and attorney declarations, confirmed that a timely objection to the original dismissal was not filed with the WCAB, divesting it of jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalLack of ProsecutionJurisdictionTimelinessProof of ServiceWCJAdministrative Law JudgeAshley Furniture Industries
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald-Besheme v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.

Claimant, an operations specialist, was injured in a fall in March 2003 and subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer failed to file a notice of controversy within the 25-day statutory period after receiving the notice of indexing on August 1, 2003. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the employer's notice untimely, precluding the employer from contesting the employer-employee relationship or that the injury arose out of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this determination, as the employer did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. The employer appealed, but the court affirmed the Board’s decision.

Late Notice of ControversyEmployer LiabilityTimeliness of FilingAppeal DecisionAdministrative ReviewStatutory ComplianceDiscretionary PowersAbsence of Good CausePreclusion of DefenseWorkplace Injury Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

Claim of Baldo v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision setting the date of disablement for claimant Joseph Baldo, a former newspaper pressman who suffered from work-related lung cancer, as July 29, 1992. Baldo's widow filed for death benefits after his passing in 1994, leading to a dispute between workers' compensation carriers over liability. The appealing carrier contended that the disablement date should be earlier, citing diagnoses in 1990 or 1991. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in selecting a disablement date and finding no medical evidence to establish disability prior to July 29, 1992, even though earlier diagnoses existed.

Workers' Compensation LawLung CancerDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCarrier ResponsibilityOccupational DiseaseMedical EvidenceClaimant DisabilityBoard Discretion
References
3
Case No. ADJ8339035
Regular
Dec 18, 2013

SILVIA FORNO vs. ACCENT CARE, INC.; CHARTIS INSURANCE, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The defendant requested removal to address liens filed after their Declaration of Readiness to Proceed. The Appeals Board granted the petition, agreeing that discovery was needed for liens filed after August 14, 2013. The trial date of January 15, 2014, will now only address liens filed prior to that date. Any liens filed after August 14, 2013, will remain off calendar.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to Proceedlien trialCompromise and Releaselien claimantsdiscoveryoff calendarWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judgelien conference
References
0
Case No. ADJ6705178
Regular
Aug 07, 2014

JOSE MORALES vs. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, INC., administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed defendant Payless Shoesource's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The defendant sought to challenge the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's bilateral lower extremities and right upper extremity. The petition was filed 29 days after the August 7, 2014 Opinion and Decision, exceeding the jurisdictional 25-day deadline for reconsideration. Even if timely, the Board indicated it would have been denied on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Dismissing PetitionIndustrial InjuryBilateral Lower ExtremitiesRight Upper ExtremityLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post Termination DefenseUntimely PetitionJurisdictional Deadline
References
4
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lockwood v. City of Yonkers

The petitioner, a firefighter named Garret Lockwood, was injured during a training exercise for the City of Yonkers Fire Department in 2014, falling from a second-story window after a harness failed. His initial motion to file a late notice of claim was denied in 2014, as the court ruled his General Municipal Law § 207-a disability benefits were his exclusive remedy. Lockwood moved to renew his motion based on a 2016 Court of Appeals decision, Matter of Diegelman v City of Buffalo, which changed the law regarding exclusive remedies. The court granted the renewal, finding it timely and the change in law applicable to the petitioner's situation. Subsequently, the court also granted the motion for leave to file a late notice of claim, citing the respondent's actual knowledge of the incident and lack of prejudice due to the delay, despite the petitioner's lack of a reasonable excuse.

Personal InjuryFirefighter InjuryLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' Compensation BenefitsExclusive Remedy DoctrineMotion to RenewChange in LawDisability BenefitsNegligence
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 9,564 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