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. ADJ13090134
Regular
Aug 14, 2025

OLIVIA RAMIREZ vs. ISIDRO A. MEJIA, ZINDER JANITORIAL CO., UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, BOURBON PUB/PARADIES LAGARDERE, SENTRY INSURANCE

Applicant Olivia Ramirez sustained an injury to her knee and ankle on November 17, 2019, while employed by Isidro A. Mejia and Zinder Janitorial Co., who were uninsured for workers' compensation. The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) successfully joined Paradies Lagardere as a co-defendant, alleging joint employer status. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found Paradies to be a joint employer in Findings of Fact issued on May 15, 2025. Paradies sought reconsideration, disputing the joint employer finding and the injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the UEBTF's answer, and the WCJ's report, ultimately granting reconsideration but deferring a final decision on the merits, indicating further review of the record and applicable law is necessary. The decision also clarified that Labor Code sections 2775 and 2776, related to employee classification, do not apply retroactively to the date of injury in this case.

Joint employerUninsured employersParadies LagardereZinder JanitorialIsidro MejiaWCJPetition for ReconsiderationAOE/COELabor Code section 5909EAMS
References
17
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. 05-22-01332-CV / CC-21-03920-A
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2023

Michael Richardson v. Melissa S. Mejia, Maria Cortez, and Hector Mejia-Cervantes

The trial court dismissed Michael Richardson’s underlying case for want of prosecution and denied his motion to reinstate. Richardson appealed the denial, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion. The Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, found that Richardson’s verified motion to reinstate provided a reasonable explanation—a miscommunication between his attorneys due to one being on maternity leave—for his failure to appear at the dismissal hearing, which was not contradicted in the record. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting the motion to reinstate. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Abuse of discretionMotion to reinstateWant of prosecutionAttorney errorMiscommunicationMaternity leaveAppellate courtTrial court dismissalRemandCivil procedure
References
6
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. 2021-03-1249
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2022

Padilla, Roberto Arturo Diaz v. Jose Mejia

Roberto Arturo Diaz Padilla filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, seeking a decision on the record for medical benefits after sustaining a work injury. He was injured on November 12, 2021, while operating a grinder as an employee of Jose Mejia’s uninsured construction company, resulting in a hand injury and surgery by orthopedist Dr. Daniel Branham. Jose Mejia failed to provide workers' compensation insurance or medical benefits, leading Mr. Padilla to incur significant medical expenses. The Court found that Mr. Padilla presented sufficient evidence to show a likelihood of prevailing at a hearing on the merits, entitling him to payment of both his past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses. The Court also held that Mr. Padilla satisfied the requirements for consideration of discretionary payment through the Uninsured Employers Fund.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsUninsured EmployerWork InjuryHand InjurySurgeryOrthopedistTennessee LawEmployer Non-ComplianceUninsured Employers Fund
References
1
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
Showing 1-10 of 50 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