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. ADJ12849972
Regular
May 19, 2025

Mimi Htut vs. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Mimi Htut against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The Board found the petition to be untimely, having been filed on March 13, 2025, which was more than 30 days after the Findings of Fact and Award was served on December 31, 2024, despite an extension period for out-of-state recipients. Furthermore, the Board stated that even if the petition had met the jurisdictional time limits, it would have been denied on the merits, as the administrative law judge's reliance on reports from the Agreed Medical Evaluator, Dr. Brian Jacks, was considered substantial medical evidence. This decision also highlighted recent amendments to Labor Code section 5909 concerning the Appeals Board's 60-day timeframe for acting on reconsideration petitions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)TransmissionNoticeReport and RecommendationFindings of Fact and Award (F&A)Jurisdictional
References
13
Case No. ADJ2275744
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

LARRY COLE vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

In *Cole v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a favorable award for the applicant. The Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's low back and psyche, resulting in a 78% permanent disability rating. The defendant's objections regarding the admissibility of psychiatric reports and apportionment of disability were rejected, with the Board finding the defendant waived the admissibility issue by failing to object at trial. The Board also held the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment regarding both psyche and low back disability.

ADJ2275744MON 0298527Larry ColeLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityTravelers Insurance CompanyreconsiderationFindings of Fact & Awardindustrial injurylow back injurypsyche injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Public Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) faced a significant budget deficit and implemented fare/toll increases and token booth closures. Public interest groups challenged these decisions, alleging that the MTA's public hearing notices were misleading and incomplete regarding financial details and alternative solutions. Lower courts initially sided with the petitioners, vacating the MTA's actions. However, on appeal, the court reversed these rulings, asserting that the MTA's notices complied with statutory requirements and were neither false nor misleading. The court emphasized the legislative role in setting disclosure standards and affirmed the MTA's authority, especially concerning the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority's toll-fixing powers. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the MTA's original decisions.

Public TransportationFare IncreaseToll IncreaseBudget DeficitPublic HearingsStatutory ComplianceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPublic Authorities LawCPLR Article 78
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01785
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2017

Henvill v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Winston Henvill appealed the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his petition to vacate an arbitration award, which resulted in the termination of his employment. The Supreme Court had granted defendants' motion to dismiss Henvill's complaint and denied his petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award based on a finding of misconduct. Henvill argued that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Benevolent Association (PBA) breached its duty of fair representation and that the arbitrator's fact-finding was irrational. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding no evidence that the PBA's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Furthermore, the court emphasized that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited to statutory grounds and does not permit reviewing the arbitrator's findings of fact.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationArbitration AwardEmployment TerminationMisconductCPLR Article 75Vacatur of Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
12
Case No. ADJ7776330
Regular
May 30, 2014

STANLEY SILO vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

This case involves Stanley Silo's workers' compensation claim against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Silo's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was primarily due to the petition being untimely filed. The WCAB further indicated that even if timely, the petition would have been denied on its merits based on the WCJ's report.

ADJ7776330Petition for ReconsiderationWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardtimely-fileduntimelyDismissedWCJ Report and Recommendationadministrative law judgeApplicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ785936 (LAO 0744760), ADJ4630105 (LAO 0803706), ADJ3055310 (LAO 0803707), ADJ1933495 (LAO 0803708), ADJ589857 (LAO 0868645), ADJ826077 (BGN 0130247)
Regular
May 16, 2014

RANDA S. REID vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

This case involves Randa S. Reid's petition for reconsideration and removal against the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and adopting the Administrative Law Judge's report. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed, and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsNon-FinalRemovalSubstantial Prejudice
References
10
Case No. ADJ4639220 (MON 0324133)
Regular
Nov 03, 2014

ARMAND LA COUNT vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

In *La Count v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This action was taken due to the WCAB's belief that further study of the factual and legal issues was necessary for a just and reasoned decision. The Board granted reconsideration to allow sufficient opportunity to fully understand the case record and potentially conduct further proceedings. Consequently, all future filings are to be submitted in writing to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not to district offices or via e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLos Angeles County Metropolitan Transit AuthorityPermissibly Self-InsuredDecision After ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionCommissioners
References
0
Case No. 11 Civ. 8655(RWS)
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff Ada Perez, a police officer for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), filed an amended complaint against the MTA and two officers, D’Agostino and Olshanetskiy, alleging violations of her Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights related to compulsory urine tests during her employment. Perez, on restricted duty after an injury and not carrying a firearm, argued she was not in a safety-sensitive position and therefore not subject to random drug testing per an MTA agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing municipal claims against the MTA due to lack of a valid § 1983 claim but allowing the unreasonable search and seizure claims to proceed based on new factual allegations regarding the MTA-Police Benevolent Association Memorandum of Agreement. The court dismissed the due process claims, finding no deprivation of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest.

Fourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentUnreasonable Search and SeizureDue ProcessMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Municipal LiabilityMonell ClaimDrug Testing
References
30
Case No. 14-10-00726-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2011

Paula Russell v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas

Paula Russell, an employee of Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas (Metro), was injured in an on-the-job car accident and received workers' compensation benefits. Metro, a self-insured governmental entity, settled its subrogation lien with Andre Sais's auto-insurance carrier, American Century, for $25,000 before Russell filed her own third-party lawsuit against Sais. Russell subsequently sued Metro, American Century, and Sais, seeking declaratory relief against Metro regarding its statutory authority to settle the subrogation lien, the binding nature of the release, and entitlement to attorney's fees. The trial court granted Metro's plea to the jurisdiction, which Russell appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Russell's claims against Metro were barred by governmental immunity and that her other claims lacked a justiciable controversy, amounting to an impermissible advisory opinion.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation LienGovernmental ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentThird-Party ClaimsTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJurisdictionPlea to the Jurisdiction
References
33
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 07109 [121 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2014

Strohmeier v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order that granted petitioners (Richard Strohmeier et al.) leave to serve a late notice of claim against Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The appellate court found that the petitioners failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the delay, did not demonstrate an absence of prejudice to the respondents, and could not prove that the respondents had actual notice of the claim's essential facts. The court specifically noted that workers' compensation documents submitted by petitioners did not provide sufficient actual notice regarding the accident's specifics. Consequently, the motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Late Notice of ClaimActual NoticePrejudiceDiscretionary RulingAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation DocumentsNotice RequirementsTimelinessMunicipal LiabilityTorts
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 11,427 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