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

Busch v. Lewis

The court addressed two motions. Firstly, a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was considered and subsequently denied, with the imposition of ten dollars in costs. Secondly, a motion seeking an extension of time to answer was reviewed. This motion was granted, allowing the respondent an additional five days to answer following the service of the order. The decision was rendered by a panel of judges including Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore, and Cohn, JJ.

Leave to Appeal DeniedExtension of Time GrantedAppellate ProcedureCourt CostsService of Order
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04009 [150 AD3d 1507]
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Matter of Jie Cao v. Five Star Travel of NY Inc.

Claimant, a bus driver, was involved in a 2007 accident and successfully applied for workers' compensation benefits, naming "Five Stars Travel Bus Inc." as his employer. Five Star Travel of NY Inc. (Five Star) did not appear after being served, leading to a WCLJ finding it liable for awards and assessments. After subsequent awards and medical treatment authorizations, a settlement was approved in 2013. In May 2015, Five Star sought to reopen the claim and challenge the prior decisions and settlement, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the application due to untimely submission of new material evidence and the non-reviewable nature of an approved waiver agreement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationBus AccidentUninsured EmployerClaim ReopeningSettlement AgreementBoard ReviewAppellate DivisionTimelinessContinuing JurisdictionDue Process
References
6
Case No. ADJ984305
Regular
Feb 20, 2015

JOANN MATUTE vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This en banc decision clarifies that the 30-day deadline to appeal an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination begins from the "mailing" date, which is legally equivalent to "service by mail." Consequently, the five-day extension provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a) for service by mail applies, making the effective deadline 35 days. The Appeals Board found the applicant's appeal timely filed on the 34th day and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits. This ruling ensures uniformity in calculating appeal periods for IMR decisions.

En BancIndependent Medical ReviewIMR DeterminationService by MailCode of Civil ProcedureLabor CodeAdministrative DirectorUtilization ReviewTimeliness of AppealReconsideration
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. ADJ7962270
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. ASSESSMENT OF OPTION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REMOVAL

Defendant Sacramento City Unified School District filed an untimely Petition for Removal arguing discovery should have closed at the mandatory settlement conference. The petition was filed 23 days after the Order, exceeding the 20-day limit. Since the defendant received personal service of the Order at the hearing, they were not entitled to a five-day extension for filing. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Off CalendarDevelopment of RecordLabor Code Section 5502(d)(3)Due DiligenceWCAB Rule 10843(a)Personal ServiceCode of Civil Procedure Section 1013(a)
References
0
Case No. ADJ9016280
Regular
Jan 28, 2015

WALTER FLORES vs. R \u0026 D CUBICLE INSTALLATION, NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, CNA CLAIMPLUS, INC.

In *Flores v. R & D Cubicle Installation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The WCAB found that the petition was filed on December 3, 2014, which was more than 25 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was served on November 4, 2014. California law strictly enforces the jurisdictional deadline of 20 days for filing a petition for reconsideration, with a potential five-day extension for mailing. The WCAB reiterated that the timely filing of such a petition is a jurisdictional requirement, and untimely petitions cannot be granted.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalLabor Code section 5903Filing DeadlineJurisdictionalAppeals BoardWCJ's DecisionServiceMailing Extension
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04008 [150 AD3d 1505]
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

Claim of Jie Cao v. Five Star Travel of NY Inc.

Norman Lan Chen, a bus driver, was involved in a 2007 bus accident. He successfully applied for workers' compensation benefits, and the Workers' Compensation Board found Five Star Travel of NY Inc. (his employer) to be uninsured and liable for awards. A settlement agreement was approved by the Board in October 2011. In May 2015, Five Star Travel of NY Inc. sought to reopen the claim and revisit the settlement approval, but the Board denied the application. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that no material new evidence was presented and the application was untimely. The court also held that the Board was correct in declining to revisit the previously approved Workers' Compensation Law § 32 settlement agreement.

Workers' Compensation BoardAppealClaim ReopeningSettlement AgreementUninsured EmployerTimelinessJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionBus Accident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Case No. VNO 0461065, VNO 0461067, VNO 0461068
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

YVETTE JONES-HOLMAN vs. METROPOLITAN STATE HOSPITAL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed within the mandatory 20-day timeframe after service, plus a five-day extension for mail service. The Board also noted that even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits as the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of proving the reasonableness of its charges. The Board emphasized that the lien claimant, not the defendant, bears the burden of establishing the reasonable value of services.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OrderCompromise and ReleasePsychiatric TechnicianLabor Code § 5903TimelinessBurden of ProofReasonableness of Charges
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 2,627 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