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. SFO 0487051
Regular
Jul 22, 2008

JOSEPH DELLAFOSSE vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC., ZURICH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether Joseph Dellafosse's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on March 24, 2004, is barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination claim. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the employer had notice of the injury before layoff notice or that medical records pre-dated the layoff notice. A dissenting commissioner argued the employer failed to prove it was a post-termination claim first, and that the applicant's testimony regarding the sequence of injury notification and layoff notice was improperly discredited.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimnotice of layoffnotice of injurypreponderance of evidenceaffirmative defenseAOE/COEcredibilityworkers' compensationWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ6941604
Regular
Jul 11, 2011

ARTURO PALACIOS vs. MARK WINDOW PRODUCTS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that denied applicant benefits. The Board found that the applicant's claim was not barred by Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10) because the date of injury, as defined by the applicant's disability and knowledge of its cause, occurred after he received notice of layoff. This was based on medical opinions obtained after the layoff notice, establishing disability subsequent to the notice. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)reconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationcumulative traumanotice of layoffdate of injurysection 5412disabilityknowledge of causemedical records
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halkias v. General Dynamics Corp.

The court considered the defendant, General Dynamics Corporation's, motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs, Dawn Dee Bryant, Barry Jackson, and others similarly situated. Plaintiffs sought recovery under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, alleging inadequate notice for a mass layoff in January and February 1991. The defendant argued the layoff was caused by business circumstances (cancellation of the A-12 program) that were not reasonably foreseeable, thus exempting them from the 60-day notice under 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(2)(A). The court found no genuine issue of material fact, concluding that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion was granted, and plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice, as the defendant provided as much notice as practicable under the circumstances.

WARN Actmass layoffsummary judgmentunforeseeable business circumstancesnotice requirementA-12 program cancellationemployee rightsFifth Circuitfederal courtclass action
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2007

Lentz v. Spanky's Restaurant II, Inc.

This Amended Order addresses a plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The plaintiff, a waiter, alleges that defendants Spanky’s Restaurant II, Inc. d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse, Lisa West, and Lady West Enterprises, LTD d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse violated FLSA by requiring waitstaff to participate in a "tip pool" with expediters who do not customarily receive tips and by failing to display required notice. The court, considering both the Lusardi and Shushan approaches to class certification, denied the plaintiff's motion. The denial was based on the plaintiff's failure to identify a sufficient number of similarly situated individuals and to provide adequate factual evidence beyond conclusory allegations. The court also noted the novelty of defining expediters' eligibility for tip-sharing and concerns about the breadth of the proposed notice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members was denied.

FLSACollective ActionTip PoolingClass CertificationSimilarly SituatedWage and HourEmployment LawFair Labor Standards ActNotice RequirementsDenial of Motion
References
30
Case No. ADJ6757162
Regular
Dec 14, 2016

JOSEPH BRABANDER vs. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns defendant Cedars-Sinai's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation finding. The administrative law judge found the applicant's cumulative trauma claim, filed after his layoff notice, was not barred by the statute of limitations or Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). The Board denied reconsideration, agreeing that the applicant's date of injury, determined by when he suffered disability and knew it was work-related, occurred after his layoff notice. Therefore, exception (D) to Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) applied.

cumulative traumaStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimspreponderance of the evidencenotice of terminationlayoffknowledge of injurydisabilityoccupational diseases
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isereau v. Brushton-Moira School District

This case concerns consolidated appeals from Supreme Court orders granting petitioners Darrell Isereau and Jason K. Houghton leave to file late notices of claim against Brushton-Moira School District. The petitioners, employees of Bette & Cring, LLC, were injured in a construction accident in August 2002, sustaining falls of approximately 15 feet. They sought to file late notices of claim based on alleged incapacitation and the District's actual knowledge of the accident. The respondent District argued prejudice due to late notice and a subsequent insurance disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion as the District had actual notice of the essential facts, and the insurance disclaimer was attributed to the District Superintendent's failure, not the petitioners' delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySchool District LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall AccidentActual KnowledgePrejudiceInsurance Disclaimer
References
5
Case No. ADJ5814563
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

MARIA VILLEGAS vs. BURKE WILLIAMS, INC., TRAVELERS SACRAMENTO

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, unverified, and unserved. The Board also initiated removal and a notice of intention to impose a $250 sanction against the lien claimant and its representative for frivolous conduct, including filing a petition with willful misrepresentations of the record. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, leading to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which formed the basis of the dismissed petition. The Board found the lien claimant's assertion of lack of notice contradicted the record, which showed service of the conference notice.

Notice of Intention to Dismiss LienPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantRemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Due processVerificationServiceUntimely
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Greater Texas Finishing Corp.

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by former employees against Greater Texas Finishing Corporation and Sun Apparel, Inc., alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and breach of contract following layoffs in 1997. The plaintiffs claimed both companies were their employers and failed to provide timely notice under WARN, while one plaintiff also asserted a breach of contract for unpaid vacation. The Court granted the defendants' motion to strike certain portions of the plaintiffs' summary judgment evidence. It also granted summary judgment in favor of Sun Apparel, concluding it was not an employer under the WARN Act, and in favor of Greater Texas regarding the 'plant closing' claim and the individual breach of contract claim. However, the Court denied summary judgment for Greater Texas on the 'mass layoff' issue due to insufficient evidence regarding the proper notice date calculation, allowing the defendant to file a second motion.

Summary JudgmentWARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployer DefinitionBreach of ContractClass ActionAffidavitsEvidentiary FactsSingle Site of Employment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Miller v. North Shore University Hospital

Claimant, a registered nurse, allegedly exacerbated an abdominal injury in September 1994 while at work, but did not file a workers' compensation claim until May 1996, after undergoing surgery. The workers' compensation carrier subsequently controverted the claim, citing untimely notice. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant failed to provide timely notice to the employer as mandated by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the emergency room report was insufficient to constitute proper notice. Furthermore, the claimant did not meet his burden of proving that the employer was not prejudiced by the delay in notice, as the delay prevented an investigation prior to his surgery.

Timely NoticeEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceAbdominal InjuryRegistered NurseAccident ReportEmergency RoomSurgeryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 18
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,193 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