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. 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. 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. 2023 NY Slip Op 02025
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2023

Velazquez-Guadalupe v. Ideal Bldrs. & Constr. Servs., Inc.

The case Velazquez-Guadalupe v Ideal Bldrs. & Constr. Servs., Inc. addresses the scope of Workers' Compensation Law § 11 regarding third-party claims for contribution and indemnity against employers. The Appellate Division, Second Department, clarified that a Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) determination establishing an employer-employee relationship bars such claims, even if the third party did not participate in the WCB proceedings, overturning the Supreme Court's prior reliance on Baten v Northfork Bancorporation, Inc. The court granted CDW Carpentry, Inc. summary judgment on these cross-claims, as the WCB found it to be Velazquez-Guadalupe's employer. However, the court affirmed allowing defendants to assert a cross-claim for breach of an oral agreement to procure insurance against CDW, noting such agreements are distinct from indemnification, and affirmed denying JSK Construction Corp.'s summary judgment motion as premature for lack of discovery.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Third-Party IndemnificationContribution ClaimsEmployer ImmunityGrave Injury ExceptionWritten Contract IndemnificationCollateral EstoppelSummary Judgment MotionBuilding Collapse InjuryConstruction Site Accident
References
35
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. ADJ8984436
Regular
Aug 30, 2019

GUADALUPE RODRIGUEZ vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

This case involves applicant Guadalupe Rodriguez's claim for a psychiatric and internal system injury against County of Riverside. The administrative law judge (WCJ) denied the claim, finding it was substantially caused by lawful, good faith personnel actions under Labor Code Section 3208.3(h). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the case for further proceedings. This was because the WCJ and the medical evaluator's analyses regarding personnel actions and causation were deficient, requiring further development of the record.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(h)psychiatric injuryinternal system injurygood faith personnel actionsCounty of San Bernardino v. WCAB (McCoy)substantial causepredominant causeagreed medical evaluator (AME)qualified medical evaluator (PQME)Rolda analysis
References
7
Case No. ADJ10474601
Regular
Mar 25, 2019

GUADALUPE ROMERO vs. BRINDERSON LP, ESIS

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration filed by Guadalupe Romero that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed. The petition was untimely because it was filed more than 25 days after the service of the Administrative Law Judge's decision. The WCAB's rules clearly state that a petition must be *received* by the board within the statutory period, and proof of mailing is insufficient. As the deadline is jurisdictional, the Board lacked authority to consider the petition on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeService by MailTime ExtensionProof of FilingMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. Hagler
References
4
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
Showing 1-10 of 122 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