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. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Dec 16, 2015

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of its intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days due to a pattern of misconduct, frivolous tactics, and failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionAppeals Board en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentWCJDiscovery abuse
References
18
Case No. Misc. No. 257
Significant

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days, citing a pattern of bad-faith tactics, frivolous actions, and repeated failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionWCAB en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsUnnecessary delayLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentRepeated misconduct
References
18
Case No. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Feb 18, 2016

vs. JAVIER JIMENEZ

The Appeals Board suspended the privilege of Javier Jimenez to appear as a representative for 180 days due to his failure to respond to a Notice of Intention to Suspend, which was based on non-compliance with prior sanction orders.

WCABLabor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionNotice of IntentionSanction ordersEn banc decisionAdministrative law judgeCompliance180-day suspensionFurther hearing
References
0
Case No. Misc. No. 257
Significant

vs. Javier Jimenez, Respondent

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board suspends the privilege of Javier Jimenez to appear as a party representative for 180 days, with the suspension continuing until he complies with prior sanction orders, following his failure to respond to a Notice of Intention.

WCABJavier JimenezRepresentative PrivilegeSuspensionLabor Code Section 4907En BancNotice Of IntentionSanction OrdersComplianceAdministrative Law Judges
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jimenez v. Estate of Jimenez

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Julio Jimenez, while operating a grocery business owned by the estate of his deceased brother Roberto, was murdered. Julio's wife, Amparo Jimenez, filed for workers' compensation benefits for herself and their three minor children. The Board found an employer-employee relationship existed between Julio and Roberto's estate, a decision contested by the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the estate, by accepting the benefits of Julio's efforts, was estopped from denying an employment relationship.

Employment RelationshipEstate LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHomicideUninsured Employers' FundAppellate ReviewEstoppelDependent BenefitsBusiness OperationVolunteer Services
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00611
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2015

Jimenez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff Ruben Jimenez, a driller, sustained injuries when a 500-pound rock anchor fell and struck him at a construction site for the Long Island Railroad extension project. He moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), which was initially denied by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the prior order, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability for his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court found that plaintiff established a prima facie case that he was struck by an unsecured falling object, which was a proximate cause of his injuries, and that defendants failed to present a valid defense.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityWorkplace InjuryDemolition WorkExcavation WorkProximate CauseAppellate Decision
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00435 [234 AD3d 945]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Gomez-Jimenez v. Wilson

Fausto Gomez-Jimenez, injured in Brooklyn while driving for his employer DRV Xpress, LLC, received New Jersey workers' compensation benefits. His vehicle was struck by Nyaisha Wilson. Wilson's insurer tendered its $25,000 policy limit, leading DRV's insurer, BerkleyNet Insurance Company, to place a subrogation lien on the settlement for the workers' compensation costs. The plaintiffs moved to vacate this lien, but the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, ruling that New Jersey law governs the reimbursement rights for benefits paid in New Jersey, thereby upholding BerkleyNet's subrogation lien.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSubrogation LienNew Jersey LawAppellate ReviewThird-Party ClaimInsurance ReimbursementPolicy LimitsEmployer's Rights
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05503 [242 AD3d 836]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2025

Gomez-Jimenez v. 50 W. Dev., LLC

The plaintiff, Leonidas Gomez-Jimenez, a laborer for a subcontractor, was injured when a piece of plywood fell from the ceiling and struck him while he was sweeping debris at a construction site. He sued 50 West Development, LLC, and others, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1) and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on that issue. However, upon renewal and reargument, the Supreme Court vacated its prior decision, granting the defendants' motion and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, affirming the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion, but reversing the grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding a triable issue of fact as to whether the area was normally exposed to falling objects.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code ViolationFalling ObjectsConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentRenewal and ReargumentAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of FactPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. ADJ8566421 ADJ8581967
Regular
May 06, 2013

MARIBEL JIMENEZ vs. VIA VENETO OF CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Maribel Jimenez's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding that she was not credible and suffered no industrial injury. The Judge found Jimenez's testimony regarding two slip-and-fall incidents lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and her failure to report or seek treatment for nearly two years. Furthermore, the Board agreed with the Judge's assessment of Jimenez's credibility, giving it great weight as per *Garza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.* The Board adopted and incorporated the Judge's report, concluding no further development of the record was warranted.

WCABPetition for Reconsiderationcredibilityindustrial injuryAOE/COEdeferred psychological injurydemeanorslip and fallno medical treatmentno lost time
References
1
Case No. ADJ9784410, ADJ9997593, ADJ9784413
Regular
Jul 18, 2018

JULIO V. JIMENEZ vs. CR & R, XL SPECIALTY INS.

This case involves Julio Jimenez's workers' compensation claims against CR&R for injuries sustained while employed as a driver. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior WCJ's decisions, finding that Jimenez's claims were not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10), which generally prevents claims filed after termination. The Board found sufficient evidence that the employer had notice of or medical records documented the eye and finger injuries prior to termination, and that Jimenez reported the knee and foot injury from the truck fire to his supervisor. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and new decisions by the WCJ, as the record needed further development, particularly regarding medical causation and specific body parts claimed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimscumulative traumaspecific injuryreconsiderationrescinded decisionsfurther proceedingsmedical recordsnotice of injury
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 125 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