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. ADJ8799770
Regular
Sep 24, 2014

RICHARD RICARDY vs. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

The applicant, Richard Ricardy, had filed a Petition for Reconsideration of a decision issued on July 18, 2014. The petitioner, likely the applicant or their representative, has subsequently withdrawn this petition. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the Petition for Reconsideration. This order effectively finalizes the July 18, 2014 decision as there is no longer an active request for review.

Petition for Reconsideration withdrawnOrder of DismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self-InsuredADJ8799770Redding District OfficeJuly 18 2014 decisionMarguerite SweeneyDeidra E. LoweSan Francisco filing
References
0
Case No. ADJ9825294 ADJ8708979
Regular
Feb 21, 2017

JOSUE CASTILLO vs. FG PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE/FARMERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision barring a lien claim by Tri-County Medical Group. The WCAB found that the lien for services rendered between January 9, 2013, and July/August 2014 was untimely filed more than 18 months after the last date of service, per Labor Code section 4903.5(a). Despite the lien claimant's argument that services began before July 1, 2013, triggering a three-year statute of limitations, the WCAB applied the 18-month limit based on the last date of service being after July 1, 2013. The WCAB upheld prior precedent finding this interpretation reasonable and rejected the unconstitutional vagueness argument.

Labor Code § 4903.5(a)Lien ClaimStatute of LimitationsPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardContinuous TreatmentDate of Service18-Month Period3-Year PeriodUnconstitutionally Vague
References
8
Case No. ADJ1560764
Regular
Oct 02, 2014

DEBORAH THOMAS vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The defendant was personally served with the WCJ's orders on July 28, 2014, making the filing deadline August 18, 2014. The petition was not filed until August 22, 2014, exceeding the jurisdictional 20-day limit. Therefore, the Board lacked the authority to consider the petition, even though it would have been denied on the merits had it been timely.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Jurisdictional DeadlinePersonal ServiceMailing ExtensionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDismissalGovernment Entity Verification
References
3
Case No. ADJ8730224
Regular
Dec 15, 2016

SERGIO BERMUDEZ vs. CERRITOS AUTO REPAIR CENTER, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Tri County Medical Group's (TCMG) petition for reconsideration of a finding that its lien claim was barred by the 18-month limitation in Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board majority held that because TCMG's last date of service was January 29, 2015, after the July 1, 2013 effective date for the shorter period, the 18-month limit applied. TCMG's lien was filed over 18 months after this last date of service and was therefore untimely. A dissenting commissioner argued that for continuously provided services crossing the July 1, 2013 date, the three-year limit should apply to avoid requiring multiple lien filings.

Labor Code Section 4903.5(a)lien claim18-month limitation periodthree-year limitation perioddate services were providedlast date of servicecontinuously provided servicespetition for reconsiderationdenial of lienWCJ report
References
19
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00744 [191 AD3d 1363]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2021

Lemiszko v. Mosovich 2014 Family Trust

Plaintiff Troy C. Lemiszko commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained after falling from a ladder on premises owned by Mosovich 2014 Family Trust. Defendant AAA Contracting, LLC appealed an order denying its pre-answer motion to dismiss Labor Law claims and the Trust's cross-claim for contractual indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order, rejecting AAA Contracting, LLC's collateral estoppel argument, finding that a prior workers' compensation determination did not preclude plaintiff's Labor Law recovery. The court also upheld the denial of dismissal for the contractual indemnification cross-claim due to insufficient documentary evidence.

Collateral EstoppelLabor Law ClaimsContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation BoardLadder FallPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissGeneral Contractor LiabilityUninsured Employer
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

Claim of Baldo v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision setting the date of disablement for claimant Joseph Baldo, a former newspaper pressman who suffered from work-related lung cancer, as July 29, 1992. Baldo's widow filed for death benefits after his passing in 1994, leading to a dispute between workers' compensation carriers over liability. The appealing carrier contended that the disablement date should be earlier, citing diagnoses in 1990 or 1991. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in selecting a disablement date and finding no medical evidence to establish disability prior to July 29, 1992, even though earlier diagnoses existed.

Workers' Compensation LawLung CancerDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCarrier ResponsibilityOccupational DiseaseMedical EvidenceClaimant DisabilityBoard Discretion
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. ADJ8255750
Regular
Sep 19, 2014

Stephen Gomez vs. County of San Bernardino

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the County of San Bernardino's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought review of a July 29, 2014 award, arguing it was duplicative of a May 7, 2014 award. However, the Administrative Law Judge subsequently issued an order vacating the July 29th award, clarifying it was issued due to a clerical error and the May 7th award remained in effect. This timely vacation rendered the petition moot.

WCABFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardClerical errorOrder VacatingRescindMootIndustrial injuryThoracic spine
References
1
Case No. ADJ7970557 ADJ7234375
Regular
Aug 01, 2016

LAURA MIRANDA vs. EL SUPER MARKET, PACIFIC COMPENSATION/NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision barring their lien for medical services. The WCJ found the lien untimely under Labor Code section 4903.5(a) because it was filed more than 18 months after the last date of service, which occurred after July 1, 2013. The Appeals Board agreed, clarifying that the 18-month limit applies to services provided on or after July 1, 2013, and the filing on September 24, 2015, was indeed too late. The Board found the lien claimant had a reasonable time to file given the statutory amendment's effective date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 4903.5(a)Joint Findings and OrderWCJTimelinessDate of Services18-month limitation period
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Palazzolo v. Dutchess County

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her left arm in July 2000. Although no lost wages were claimed initially, diagnostic tests were authorized, and issues of permanency and average weekly wages remained unresolved, with a directive for the employer to provide payroll records. In 2013, after claimant sought further medical treatment, the employer requested to transfer liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a, arguing the statutory time limits had elapsed. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied this request, finding the case was never truly closed due to outstanding issues and unfulfilled directives. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, which was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that further proceedings were contemplated, thus preventing the case from being considered truly closed for the purpose of shifting liability.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferCase ClosureOutstanding IssuesPermanency DeterminationAverage Weekly WagesPayroll RecordsAppellate ReviewNew York Labor Law
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,655 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