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

Varela v. Flintlock Construction, Inc.

The plaintiff, Norma Varela, filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, against Flintlock Construction, Inc. and Gregory Steck, alleging sexual harassment, unlawful discharge, and discrimination. An amended complaint filed seven years later added Andrew Weiss as a defendant, who subsequently filed a notice of removal to the District Court. Varela moved to remand the case to state court, arguing Weiss's removal petition was untimely. The District Court, presided over by Judge COTE, analyzed whether the 30-day removal period runs from the first-served defendant or the last-served defendant. The court adopted the 'last-served defendant rule,' consistent with the Supreme Court's Murphy Brothers decision, concluding that Weiss's removal petition was timely as it was filed within 30 days of him being served with the amended complaint.

Removal jurisdictionTimeliness of removalFirst-served defendant ruleLast-served defendant ruleFederal question jurisdictionService of processAmended complaintSubject matter jurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNew York Civil Practice Law and Rules
References
22
Case No. ADJ8964113
Regular
Jun 24, 2016

LISA LIU vs. ADVENTURER HOTEL, TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claim filed by Tri-County Medical Group for services provided to applicant Lisa Liu. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the lien, finding it was filed untimely beyond the 18-month statutory limit. The lien claimant appealed, arguing the filing date of February 2, 2015, was within the period because the 18-month deadline of February 1, 2015, fell on a Sunday, extending the filing to the next business day. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the ALJ's order, and found the lien timely filed. The Board determined that per procedural rules, when the last day falls on a weekend, the deadline extends to the next business day.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.5(b)Statute of Limitations18-month periodRules of Practice and ProcedureBusiness DayEAMS RecordJudicial Notice
References
1
Case No. ADJ8227298
Regular
Dec 18, 2014

DIANA MARKS vs. A.C. TRANSIT DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated its prior Order Granting Reconsideration. The Board determined that the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration was not timely filed due to an electronic filing after 5:00 p.m. on the last day to file, making it legally deemed filed the following business day. As the petition was untimely, the Board dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingEAMSBatch IDWCABLabor CodeCal. Code Regs.Jurisdictional Time LimitsWCJOrder Granting Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. ADJ3859668
Regular
Sep 05, 2014

GUY CULVER vs. TERRY DAY, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES/IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Guy Culver's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely filed. The Board found the petition was filed more than 25 days after the original order, exceeding the statutory 20-day limit plus 5 days for mailing. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013DismissalApplicantDefendantState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Same Day Delivery Service, Inc. v. Penn Star Insurance

Same Day Delivery Service, Inc. sued its insurer, Penn-Star Insurance Company, seeking a declaration that Penn-Star must cover a personal injury lawsuit filed against Same Day. Penn-Star moved for summary judgment, arguing Same Day failed to provide timely notice of the claim and that the incident was excluded from the policy. The Court granted Penn-Star's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Same Day's notice to Penn-Star was untimely by approximately ten months, or at least two months even under Same Day's arguments, and that the delay was inexcusable under New York law. Consequently, Penn-Star is not obligated to provide coverage.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentTimely NoticePolicy CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentPersonal InjuryNew York LawInsurance Policy ExclusionCommercial General LiabilityAs Soon As Practicable Clause
References
39
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. ADJ10871261
Regular
Nov 28, 2018

OSCAR GONZALEZ vs. TRES GENERACIONES, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE administered by RISICO CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Oscar Gonzalez's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed electronically via EAMS after 5 p.m. on the last day it could be deemed timely. Therefore, it was legally deemed filed on the next court day, making it late. The WCAB has no jurisdiction to consider untimely petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingEAMSJurisdictional Time LimitDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings of FactService MethodCredibility DeterminationsWCJ Report
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel

Plaintiff Augustine Fernandez filed a lawsuit in New York State Court following an automobile collision, seeking one million dollars in damages. He named Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel, John Doe, JBN Transport, and Dan Schantz Farm & Greenhouses as defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction. Fernandez moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing the removal was untimely and the amount in controversy was insufficient. The court, applying the "last-served defendant rule," determined the removal was timely as the last defendant received the summons on April 23, 2004, and the removal petition was filed within 30 days. The court also accepted Fernandez's stated damages of $1 million for diversity jurisdiction purposes, rejecting his attempt to disclaim it. Consequently, Fernandez’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied.

Diversity JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMotion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalLast-Served Defendant RuleAmount in ControversyService of ProcessStatutory AgentCivil ProcedureSouthern District of New York
References
23
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,331 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