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

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Deka Realty Corp.

This appellate opinion addresses the proper assessment of contempt sanctions and civil penalties against Deka Realty Corp. for numerous housing code violations. The court clarifies that civil contempt fines must compensate aggrieved tenants for actual damages, not be based on a multiplication of statutory maximums per violation, and remits for a damages hearing. Criminal contempt fines, intended to vindicate court authority, were reduced to $1,000 per contemnor. The court also held that while serious monetary sanctions can trigger a constitutional right to a jury trial, Deka Realty Corp. waived this right by failing to make a timely demand. Civil penalties against Deka were also reduced.

Contempt sanctionsCivil penaltiesHousing code violationsJury trial rightJudiciary LawCivil contempt finesCriminal contempt finesConsent decreeLandlord-tenant disputeDue process
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 1991

Bonilla v. New York City Civil Service Commission

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner challenged a determination disqualifying him from a civil service eligible list for a sanitation worker position due to a psychiatric disorder. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition, citing the petitioner's failure to commence the proceeding before the eligible list expired. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, relying on established case law such as Matter of Deas v Levitt, which mandates dismissal if a challenge to an eligible list determination is not initiated prior to the list's expiration. This ruling emphasizes the procedural requirement for timely legal action concerning civil service eligible lists.

Civil Service LawEligible ListDisqualificationPsychiatric DisorderNervous BreakdownTimeliness of PetitionExpiration of Eligible ListProcedural DismissalJudicial ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
12
Case No. SFO 406432
Regular
Apr 09, 2008

VANCOIS D'AMOUN vs. PACIUFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The petition failed to meet the 20-day statutory deadline under Labor Code § 5903, plus the additional 5 days for mailing under Code of Civil Procedure §1013, and was not filed in the correct office. Consequently, the WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report and ordered the petition dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10840Lab. Code §5903Code of Civil Procedure §1013untimelydismissReport and Recommendationadministrative law judgeworkers' compensationapplicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ3140199 (RIV 0068905) ADJ966589 (RIV 0068906) ADJ3180444 (RIV 0068982)
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

JOSE L. JARA vs. IMPERIAL WESTERN PRODUCTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jose L. Jara's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition was untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Findings and Award was issued on October 18, 2013. This timeframe violates Labor Code section 5903 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 regarding timely reconsideration filings. Consequently, the WCAB has ordered the dismissal of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Administrative Law JudgeRecord ReviewOrder
References
0
Case No. ADJ7103630
Regular
May 21, 2012

DENISE SANCHES vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves Denise Sanches' workers' compensation claim against the County of Sacramento. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sanches' Petition for Removal as untimely. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed on March 8, 2012, which was more than the allowed 25 days after the February 13, 2012, decision. This delay violated the time limits prescribed by 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 10843 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1013.

Petition for RemovalUntimelyDecision DateFiling Date25 Days20 Days8 Cal. Code Regs. 10843Code of Civil Procedure § 1013Served by MailDismissed
References
0
Case No. ADJ7676894 ADJ7676896
Regular
Nov 27, 2012

MARIA CORTEZ vs. PPG INDUSTRIES, YORK INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by a lien claimant that was dismissed as untimely. The administrative law judge's report, which the Board adopted, found the petition was filed more than 25 days after the August 30, 2012, order. This exceeds the statutory 20-day deadline plus the additional 5 days for mailing allowed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for failing to meet the procedural filing requirements.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Report and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ3682964 (ANA 0393581) ADJ2308886 (ANA 0399397)
Regular
Dec 12, 2008

KARLA ORNELAZ vs. ALBERTSON'S INC., Permissibly Selfinsured, Administered by SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the employer's offer of modified work was timely. The Board ruled that the 60-day period to offer work under Labor Code § 4658(d) begins when the employer is served with notice of the employee's permanent and stationary status. Furthermore, the Board held that the five-day mailing extension under Code of Civil Procedure § 1013 applies to this notice, thus entitling the employer to a 15% decrease in permanent disability indemnity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAlbertson's Inc.Specialty Risk ServicesInc.Karla OrnelazLabor Code §4658(d)(2)Labor Code §4658(d)(3)(A)permanent and stationarymodified workalternative work
References
0
Case No. ADJ1807866 (VNO 0555240)
Regular
Nov 06, 2013

ELVIRA ANAYA vs. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, TRISTAR

This case involves Elvira Anaya's workers' compensation claims against Grimmway Enterprises. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration filed by an applicant/defendant/lien claimant. The dismissal is due to the petition being filed untimely, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Order Amending Finding of Fact issued on July 5, 2013. This failure to meet the statutory filing deadline under Labor Code section 5903 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 mandates the dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationuntimelydismissalWCABLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Order Amending Finding of Factadministrative law judgeGrimmway EnterprisesTristar
References
0
Case No. ADJ7397383
Regular
Dec 07, 2012

JOSE GARCIA vs. PRODUCTION PLUS PLUMBING, INC., MATRIX INSURANCE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Jose Garcia concerning a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was not filed within the 25-day statutory period. This deadline included the 20 days allowed by Labor Code section 5903 plus 5 additional days for mailing per Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Consequently, the Board adopted the administrative law judge's recommendation and dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Dismissal OrderApplicantDefendant
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 6,786 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