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

Mejia v. Astrue

Pro se plaintiff Joseph Mejia challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying him Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Mejia alleged disability due to heart failure and high blood pressure since October 2007. Administrative Law Judge Robin J. Arzt denied the application on May 28, 2009, finding Mejia's impairments were severe but did not meet listed impairments and that he retained the residual functional capacity for light work. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck reviewed the decision and found it supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, affirming the denial of benefits.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security Income BenefitsCongestive Heart FailureHypertensionCardiomyopathyResidual Functional CapacityALJ Decision ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewTreating Physician Rule
References
82
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06863 [188 AD3d 574]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2020

Mejia v. Unique Dev. Holding Corp

Plaintiff Santos Mejia sustained injuries when a load of lumber fell from a pallet during hoisting at a construction site, striking him. The Supreme Court initially granted Mejia partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed claims against defendant Certified Lumber Corporation. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, reinstating Mejia's common-law negligence claim against Certified and defendant Montrose Park, LLC's cross claims for contribution and indemnification against Certified. The court found triable issues of fact concerning Certified's negligence in securing or unloading the lumber, while affirming the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, noting Mejia's activity was covered under the statute.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceContributionIndemnificationAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyFalling ObjectTriable Issues of FactPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01449 [203 AD3d 815]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2022

Mejia v. 69 Mamaroneck Rd. Corp.

The plaintiff, Roger Mejia, a roofer, sustained personal injuries after falling through an unguarded hole on a roof during construction work. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied his motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but granted it for Labor Law § 241 (6). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order regarding Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court found that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to provide adequate safety devices against an elevation-related risk, which was a proximate cause of Mejia's injuries, and that the plaintiff's conduct was not the sole proximate cause.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentLiabilityElevation-related RiskProximate CauseSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentRooferUncovered OpeningAppellate Division
References
10
Case No. ADJ14895207; ADJ162421; ADJ14895259; ADJ14894712
Regular
Feb 13, 2023

DENISE ARMTROUT vs. PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN ASSOCIATES

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denying her petition. The applicant, Denise Armtrout, sought authorization for lymphatic massage therapy for lymphedema. Independent medical review initially denied the treatment, citing a lack of evidence for its necessity and the applicant's ability to perform self-treatment. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied reconsideration, upholding the prior decision to deny the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionIndependent Medical Review (IMR)Lymphatic MassageLymphedemaChild Nutrition SpecialistAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Utilization Review (UR)Plainly Erroneous Finding of Fact
References
1
Case No. ADJ7411124
Regular
Jul 03, 2018

Francisco Mejia vs. David Pearson and Linda Pearson dba Dinah's Chicken, Zenith Insurance, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves applicant Francisco Mejia seeking reconsideration of an approved compromise and release agreement and stipulation for workers' compensation benefits. Mejia claimed he was experiencing stress, pain, and confusion during settlement negotiations, leading him to act illogically. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied his petition, finding that Mejia understood the terms of the settlements based on discussions with the judge and the presence of an information and assistance officer. The Board affirmed that Mejia's petition did not establish good cause to set aside the binding agreements.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseStipulation with Request for AwardQualified Medical Evaluatorpermanent disabilitypsyche claimsgood causemutual mistakeduress
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1998

Lopez v. Tarana

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in three related actions concerning wrongful death and personal injuries stemming from a car accident. An intoxicated employee, Cynthia Tarana, after drinking at an unofficial work event, caused an accident resulting in one death and two injuries. The Supreme Court initially found Tarana negligent and her employer, C & H Pizza Corp., and supervisor, Denise LaBarbera, liable under the 'social host' statute, awarding damages to the plaintiffs Annette Lopez, Kara Kissane, and Catherine Rubino. The appellate court reversed the judgment, citing errors in determining the supervisor's scope of employment, the omission of fault apportionment for the employer and driver, and the award of damages to Annette Lopez without proof of economic loss. Consequently, the complaint seeking damages for Annette Lopez personally was dismissed, and a new trial was granted for the remaining causes of action.

Wrongful deathPersonal injuryVehicular manslaughterIntoxicated drivingSocial host liabilityScope of employmentJury verdictDamagesAppellate reviewReversal
References
2
Case No. ADJ4332905 (SAL 0109881)
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

JESUS RODRIGUEZ vs. BUD OF CALIFORNIA

California Physicians Network (CPN) and its representative, Dennise Mejia, were sanctioned $2,500.00 jointly and severally for filing a frivolous and untimely petition for reconsideration that lacked proper verification and contained erroneous facts. The Board dismissed their reconsideration request because it did not challenge a final order and was procedurally deficient. CPN and Mejia failed to respond to the Board's notice of intent to impose sanctions. The defendant's claim for additional trial-level costs and attorney's fees was deferred to the workers' compensation administrative law judge for initial determination.

ADJ4332905SAL 0109881Opinion and Decision After RemovalSanctionCalifornia Physicians NetworkDennise MejiaLien ClaimantLabor Code section 5813(a)Appeals Board Rule 10561Frivolous
References
6
Case No. ADJ3733087 (SAC 0298774)
Regular
May 28, 2009

Luis Mejia vs. MARQUEZ BROTHERS FOODS, INC., CIGA on behalf of PACIFIC NATIONAL, in liquidation, by its servicing facility, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

This case involves a worker, Luis Mejia, seeking reconsideration of an earlier denial of his petition by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Mejia's current petition attempts to rehash his original arguments and introduce a new case, *Barr v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* The WCAB dismisses this petition because it is an impermissibly successive filing. The Board states that parties aggrieved by a final decision must seek review from the Court of Appeal, not file further petitions with the WCAB.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationDismissalSuccessive PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationWrit of ReviewCourt of AppealOrder Denying ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationDisqualification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mejias v. Social Security Administration

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a determination by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare denying him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The plaintiff's application, based on a disability claim stemming from bronchial asthma, was initially denied by an Administrative Law Judge in July 1976 and subsequently affirmed by the Appeals Council in December 1976. The court found that despite the plaintiff's subjective complaints of disability and submissions from medical social workers and treating physicians asserting a deterioration in his condition, the administrative record contained substantial evidence that his asthma responded to treatment and his symptoms were minimal. The court affirmed the Secretary's decision to deny SSI benefits, but dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to present additional, substantiated medical evidence to the Social Security Administration.

Supplemental Security IncomeSSI BenefitsDisability ClaimBronchial AsthmaAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTreating Physician OpinionSubjective SymptomsMedical Evidence
References
15
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
Showing 1-10 of 81 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