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. 2020 NY Slip Op 03775
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2020

Mendoza v. Enchante Accessories, Inc.

The plaintiff, Jesus Mendoza, sued Enchante Accessories, Inc. for personal injuries after falling from a stock picking machine in a warehouse. Mendoza alleged Enchante was negligent in supervision, training, and providing safety equipment. Enchante countered that it had ceded control of the warehouse and that safety devices were available, with Mendoza's non-use being the sole cause. A jury found both parties negligent, assigning 25% liability to Enchante. The Supreme Court denied Enchante's post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, to set aside the verdict, or to amend its answer to include a Workers' Compensation defense. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings and that Enchante's motion to amend its answer was procedurally deficient and lacked substantive proof.

Personal InjuryNegligenceWarehouse AccidentStock PickerJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ProcedureCPLR 4401CPLR 4404Workers Compensation DefenseSafety Training
References
16
Case No. ADJ 6989600 ADJ 7517232 ADJ 7597741 ADJ 9169430
Regular
May 02, 2016

RENE MENDOZA (Deceased) DOLORES MENDOZA (Dependent) vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AUTHORITY; YORK

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a petition for removal filed by a petitioner, who subsequently withdrew it. As a result, the Board ordered the dismissal of the petition. The case originates from the claims of Dolores Mendoza, dependent of the deceased Rene Mendoza, against the City of Los Angeles Department of Housing Authority and York. This dismissal pertains to a decision issued on March 16, 2016.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissedApplicantDependentDefendantCase Nos.Van Nuys District OfficeDecisionPetitioner
References
0
Case No. ADJ7503292
Regular
Mar 26, 2013

RIGOBERTO MENDOZA vs. PIZZA MIZZA, GUARD INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Rigoberto Mendoza's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) finding that Mendoza did not sustain the alleged industrial injury. The WCJ's decision was based on an evaluation of witness credibility and inconsistencies in Mendoza's account of the injury. Specifically, the WCJ found the employer's testimony more credible regarding the timing and nature of the reported injury. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, leading to the denial of reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenialCredibilityGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ApplicantEmployerIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryLeg Injury
References
1
Case No. 2014-1712 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2017

Daily Med. Equip. Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins.

Daily Medical Equipment Distribution Center, Inc., as assignee of Juan Mendoza, appealed an order from the Civil Court concerning no-fault benefits. The Civil Court had held Global Liberty Insurance's motion for summary judgment in abeyance. This abeyance was pending a Workers' Compensation Board determination on Mendoza's eligibility for workers' compensation benefits. The Appellate Term dismissed the appeal, ruling that an order holding a motion in abeyance is not appealable as of right under CPLR 5701 (a) (2). Consequently, the court declined to grant leave to appeal, thus upholding the procedural decision to await the Workers' Compensation Board's findings.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation BoardAppeal DismissedSummary Judgment MotionAbeyanceAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionCivil Procedure Law and RulesFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ4363746 (AHM 0151277)
Regular
Oct 17, 2011

MARGARITA MENDOZA vs. RALPH'S GROCERY

This order dismisses Margarita Mendoza's Petition for Reconsideration in her workers' compensation case against Ralph's Grocery. The Appeals Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, finding the petition untimely. Even if timely, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits based on the judge's reasoning. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissal OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportUntimely PetitionMerits DenialRalph's GrocerySelf-insuredADJ4363746AHM0151277
References
0
Case No. ADJ8479463
Regular
Oct 02, 2014

HORTENCIA MENDOZA vs. BAUTISTA FARM, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Hortencia Mendoza's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision that determined substantive rights. The order for liens to be "paid, adjusted or litigated" was not a final resolution. The Board also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. This ruling emphasizes that reconsideration is only available for final orders disposing of substantive rights and liabilities.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalRemovalInterlocutoryFinal OrderSubstantive RightsLiabilitiesAdjustmentLiensPrejudice
References
5
Case No. ADJ1818368 (VNO 0523027), ADJ3597904 (VNO 0529502)
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

EMILIA OLGUIN vs. ESIS DIVISION OF ACE/USA INSURANCE

This case involves applicant Emilia Olguin's petition for reconsideration of a prior denial of her appeal. The Board granted reconsideration, finding her initial petition was timely filed on September 16, 2011, contrary to their previous decision. However, on the merits, the Board denied Olguin's appeal, adopting the workers' compensation judge's findings that her fibromyalgia was not industrially caused. The Board noted that the attorney's filing of duplicate petitions at different offices caused the initial confusion.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings of Fact and AwardsTimelinessLabor Code Section 5903Mail ServiceFiling DeadlineElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)District Office FilingCumulative Industrial Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ8768908
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

GERARDO MENDOZA MEDINA vs. MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE, CLAIMQUEST, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gerardo Mendoza Medina's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the Board only grants it if a party shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant failed to demonstrate that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. ADJ8215090
Regular
Jun 05, 2019

GUADALUPE MENDOZA vs. GODO FARM LABOR CONTRACTORS, STAR INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a previous decision. The amendment allowed a lien claim for medical treatment provided by Suarez-Toutoundjian Chiropractic to the applicant, Guadalupe Mendoza, in the amount of $780.92. This amount is to be paid by Defendant-Carrier Star Insurance Company. The overall decision of March 14, 2019, was otherwise affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGuadalupe MendozaGODO FARM LABOR CONTRACTORSSTAR INSURANCEMEADOWBROOKPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportDecision After ReconsiderationLien ClaimantSuarez-Toutoundjian Chiropractic
References
0
Case No. ADJ2403362 (MON 0247582) ADJ2066217 (MON 0306486)
Regular
Apr 25, 2011

EMILIA MENDOZA vs. LACMTA, THE TRAVELERS INS. CO., LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the disallowance of lien claimant Care Center Rehabilitation and Pain Management's (LC) lien for unpaid medical treatment. LC failed to file a required fictitious business name statement and could not prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary. However, the Board reversed the order for LC to pay restitution to the defendants, finding they failed to meet their burden of proof for unjust enrichment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEmilia MendozaLACMTAThe Travelers Insurance CompanyConstitution State Services Companylien claimantCare Center Rehabilitation and Pain Managementindustrial injuriesneck and shouldersbus operator
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 74 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