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

Spinella v. Town of Paris Zoning Board of Appeals

The respondents moved to dismiss the petition alleging petitioners failed to submit a proposed judgment within 60 days, deeming it abandoned. Petitioners' counsel, a qualified individual with a visual disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, argued that his impairment constituted 'good cause' for the delay. He sought reasonable accommodation, citing past accommodations for the bar exam and law school, as well as an increased workload due to a lost secretary. The court found that the counsel's visual impairment indeed served as good cause for noncompliance with the established time limits. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and the proposed judgment was signed, recognizing the extension of time as a reasonable accommodation.

Americans with Disabilities ActADADisability AccommodationJudicial DiscretionProcedural RulesTime LimitsGood CauseVisual ImpairmentAttorney DisabilityCourt Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1997

In re the Claim of Mustaqur Rahman

The claimant, employed by a temporary agency for six months, resigned alleging co-worker harassment. He admitted not discussing his concerns with the employer prior to resigning. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found he voluntarily left his employment without good cause, noting that continuing work and reassignment options were available had he informed the employer. The Board's decision was affirmed on appeal, reinforcing that co-worker conflicts do not constitute good cause for leaving employment, especially when the employer is not notified beforehand.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary ResignationGood CauseHarassmentEmployer NotificationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewCo-worker ConflictDisqualificationEmployment Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Bonilla

Claimant, a postal worker, was arrested for threatening suicide and subsequently required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by releasing his medical records to determine his fitness for duty. He refused to release these records, which prevented the completion of the psychiatric examination and ultimately led to him not being permitted to return to work. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board then disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, ruling that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. This decision was based on the premise that a claimant who fails to take a reasonably required step as a prerequisite to continued employment is deemed to have voluntarily left their job without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Voluntary separationUnemployment benefitsGood cause for leaving employmentMedical records releaseFitness for dutyPsychiatric evaluationPostal workerDisqualification from benefitsSubstantial evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2003

In re the Claim of Kohen

The claimant, a social worker, filed a complaint against her employer with the Division of Human Rights alleging religious harassment. Despite continued problems, including a high-risk pregnancy, she resigned in June 2003, citing dissatisfaction with the work environment and unfair treatment. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, concluding she voluntarily left without good cause. The court affirmed this decision, reiterating that dissatisfaction with one's working environment does not constitute good cause for leaving employment.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary ResignationGood CauseWork EnvironmentHarassmentPregnancyAppealSocial WorkerDissatisfactionUnfair Treatment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Elkan-Moore

The case involves a claimant's appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled she was disqualified from receiving benefits due to voluntarily leaving her employment without good cause. The claimant, a museum director for five years, contended she resigned due to distress over allegations by a former Board of Trustees president and ongoing harassment from staff. However, the court found that issues with co-workers do not constitute good cause for leaving. An investigation had cleared the claimant of the allegations, and the Board was actively working to resolve the situation and retain her. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant left her job due to general dissatisfaction with work conditions.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary QuittingGood CauseJob DissatisfactionWorkplace HarassmentBoard of TrusteesEmployer-Employee RelationsAppellate ReviewBenefit DisqualificationClaimant Appeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00275 [223 AD3d 569]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2024

Maurizaca v. 201 Water St., LLC

In this case, third-party defendant Apex Restoration Corp. appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment. The motion was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County, because Apex failed to demonstrate good cause for its delay in filing the motion. Specifically, the court noted that Apex did not require an IME report to meet its prima facie burden under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 and also delayed filing for several months even after obtaining other relevant reports. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that Apex's arguments on the merits were irrelevant to establishing good cause for the delay. The court reiterated that establishing good cause for filing delays is a prerequisite for such motions.

summary judgment motiondelay in filinggood causecommon-law indemnitycontribution claimsWorkers' Compensation Lawappellate affirmationprima facie burdenprocedural errorcivil procedure rules
References
5
Case No. ADJ1923491 (MON 0328312) ADJ1637229 (MON 0328313) ADJ1163286 (MON 0333886)
Regular
Jul 24, 2014

EVANGELINA JIMENEZ vs. ADVANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denies a petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report, finding no good cause to set aside the dismissal of a lien. Petitioner was properly served with notice of the lien trial and a Notice of Intention to Submit and Dismiss Lien for failure to appear. An untimely and improperly filed objection did not demonstrate good cause for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardElectronic Adjudication Management Systemlien trialNotice of IntentionSubmit and Dismiss Liencover sheetgood causeset aside dismissaladministrative law judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ3659496
Regular
Aug 01, 2013

ISIDORO BASTIDA vs. MAINSTAY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND, METRO RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. This extraordinary remedy was denied because the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board affirmed the denial of the defendant's second Petition for Dismissal, finding it improper as a new notice was required after the applicant's opportunity to show good cause had already passed. The case will return to the trial calendar, where it should be dismissed unless the applicant shows good cause.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DismissalCalifornia Self-Insurers' Security Fundsubstantial prejudiceirreparable injurygood causetrial calendarmandatory settlement conferencethirty day notice letteradministrative law judge
References
4
Case No. ADJ3025610 (LAO 0804371) ADJ2399189 (LAO 0833561) ADJ616704 (LAO 0833554) ADJ2590395 (LAO 0833562)
Regular
Jun 18, 2019

ROSA RENTERIA, vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of their lien dismissal for failing to appear at a noticed lien conference. The lien claimant argued human error constituted excusable neglect under CCP 473(b). The WCJ found no good cause for the non-appearance and dismissed the lien. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the dismissal because the explanation of "human error" was skeletal and did not adequately explain the failure to appear or demonstrate good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJRule 10562CCP 473(b)Excusable NeglectGood CauseFox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 6,892 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