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. 2023 NY Slip Op 05172 [220 AD3d 1033]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Matter of Espinoza v. City Safety Compliance Corp.

Jaime Espinoza, a safety manager, sustained injuries while pulling a gate in a parking area adjacent to a construction site after his shift. He filed for workers' compensation, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the claim, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, as the employer neither controlled the parking area nor was it part of the jobsite. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. The Court found a sufficient nexus between the employment and the parking area, noting that Espinoza was instructed to park there and construction materials were stored by the general contractor in the same vicinity, thereby extending the employer's premises. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawScope of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryParking Area InjuryPremises Extension DoctrineRemittalAppellate Division Third DepartmentConstruction SiteSafety ManagerArising Out of Employment
References
13
Case No. ADJ7069022
Regular
Jan 30, 2012

JAVIER ESPINOZA vs. VALET DETAIL SERVICE, Doing Business As YOUR VALET, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision barring applicant Javier Espinoza from benefits. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report finding Espinoza lacked credibility and did not sustain his burden of proving an industrial injury. The WCJ's credibility findings, given great weight, were based on Espinoza's attributed work-related symptoms and his seeking medical treatment months after termination and subsequent self-employment. The Board also noted that while Espinoza's employer may not have complied with all notice requirements, this was irrelevant as no industrial injury was found.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Labor Code 3550Labor Code 3551industrial injurypost-termination defenseLabor Code 3600(a)(10)
References
1
Case No. ADJ6760596
Regular
May 23, 2018

SAMUEL ESPINOZA vs. EXCEL STAFFING SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior decision regarding applicant Samuel Espinoza's work injury. The Board increased Espinoza's lumbar spine Whole Person Impairment (WPI) from 29% to 45%, based on the agreed medical examiner's alternative rating which was deemed more accurate. Consequently, Espinoza's permanent disability rating was increased from 43% to 57%. The Board also deferred the issue of mileage reimbursement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWhole Person Impairmentlumbar spineagreed medical examinerAMA Guidespermanent disabilitysexual dysfunctionurological issues
References
0
Case No. ADJ10056628
Regular
Jul 09, 2019

RON ESPINOZA vs. CONSTRUCTION SPECIALTY SERVICES, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSUANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over temporary disability indemnity for an injured crane operator, Ron Espinoza. The defendant argues Espinoza's termination for cause should bar his indemnity claim, while the EDD contends its lien for SDI payments was improperly limited. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board requires a proper analysis of whether Espinoza's termination was justified, as opposed to the trial judge's prior reasoning about rehire possibility.

Temporary disability indemnityPetition for reconsiderationFindings Orders and AwardLabor Code section 4656(c)(2)Lien claimant Employment Development Department (EDD)Dismissal for causeRefusal to workEstoppelSuitable modified workJustified termination
References
4
Case No. ADJ6748204
Regular
Jan 17, 2012

Stewart Espinoza vs. Los Angeles County Jail, Tristar Irvine

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a judge's finding of employment for inmate Stewart Espinoza. The Board found that Espinoza, an inmate injured while working in the County Jail kitchen, was not an employee for workers' compensation purposes. This was because a County ordinance allowed inmates to be compelled to perform labor, negating a voluntary employment relationship. Therefore, the applicant was not an employee entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLos Angeles County Jailinmate laboremployee statusvoluntary workcompulsory laborPenal Code Section 4017Government Code Section 25359SCIF v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (Childs)Parsons v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
3
Case No. ADJ8142245
Regular
Apr 26, 2013

TRINIDAD POLANCO ESPINOZA vs. RYNSBURGER DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision concerning Trinidad Polanco Espinoza's claim against Ryn sburger Dairy and Zenith Insurance Company. The Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge, who determined that Espinoza's claimed industrial injuries were not supported by the evidence. The judge found the claim barred by the post-termination defense and lack of credible medical evidence or timely reporting of the injury. Consequently, the Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration.

WCABReconsiderationDeniedIndustrial InjuryAOE/COEPost-TerminationStatute of LimitationsDWC-1Employer NoticeMedical Evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ8877250, ADJ8877252
Regular
Nov 25, 2015

Tomas Espinoza vs. SBEEG HOLDINGS, LLC, NATIONAL LIABILITY & FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

This case involves applicant Tomas Espinoza's petition for reconsideration after his workers' compensation cases were dismissed without prejudice. The dismissal stemmed from his failure to appear at a mandatory settlement conference on May 4, 2015. Espinoza argued good cause existed for his non-appearance, presenting a nearly illegible doctor's note dated September 14, 2015. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the provided documentation did not explain his absence at the crucial May 4th hearing. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the illegible note did not establish good cause for the initial failure to appear.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeMandatory Settlement ConferenceFailure to AppearDismissal Without PrejudiceGood CauseMedical ReasonsDoctor's NoteIllegible Document
References
0
Case No. 535483
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Jaime Espinoza

Claimant, a safety manager, was injured in a parking area adjacent to his construction site after his shift while pulling a gate, sustaining a bicep and rotator cuff injury. He filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were denied by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment as the parking area was not part of the job site or controlled by the employer. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding that claimant's uncontradicted testimony established he was instructed to park in that area and that construction materials were stored there, creating a sufficient nexus between the construction site and the parking area to extend the employment premises. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentParking Area InjuryPremises DoctrineArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentConstruction SiteEmployer ControlNexusRemittal
References
20
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02144 [226 AD3d 564]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2024

Espinoza v. A S K Std. Tr. Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying defendant A S K Standard Transit Corp.'s motions to compel discovery, amend its answer, and strike the note of issue. The defendant's counterclaims, including fraud and breach of contract, stemming from the plaintiff's alleged use of a fraudulent Social Security card, were deemed legally insufficient due to a lack of adequately alleged damages. The court also held that a claim for abuse of process fails because the initiation of a civil action is not considered process capable of being abused. Furthermore, discovery related to the plaintiff's fraudulent documentation with other entities was found to be irrelevant to the current claim for unpaid wages.

Discovery motionMotion to amend answerStrike note of issueCounterclaimsFraudulent documentationSocial Security fraudBreach of contractAbuse of processDamagesUnpaid wages
References
9
Case No. ADJ8829857 ADJ8829856
Regular
Apr 18, 2016

DULCE ESPINOZA vs. JENCO PRODUCTIONS, INC., FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the appealed finding, deferring development of the record on psychiatric injury, was not a final order. The Board then treated the petition as one for removal, granted it, and rescinded the deferral. Ultimately, the Board found that the applicant failed to prove industrial injury to her psyche, citing a lack of objective evidence and inconsistencies in her reporting, as well as a conflicted medical opinion.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDULCE ESPINOZAJENCO PRODUCTIONSINC.FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICAADJ8829857ADJ8829856Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDecision After Removal
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 48 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