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

In re Martha Z.

This case involves an appeal from two orders of the Family Court of Chemung County concerning the adjudication of child abuse and neglect. The respondents, Vernon Z. and Connie Z., are the parents of two daughters, Martha and Margaret. The proceedings were initiated after Martha disclosed an incident of sexual contact by her father. Family Court found the father abused and neglected Martha, the mother neglected Martha, and both parents derivatively neglected Margaret. Respondents appealed, challenging the credibility and corroboration of Martha's statements. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's findings, noting that Martha's out-of-court statements were sufficiently corroborated and the mother failed to dispute her neglect.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily Court ActCorroboration of Child StatementsCredibility AssessmentDerivative NeglectParental JudgmentAppellate ReviewSexual ContactEmotional Distress
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mejia v. Astrue

Pro se plaintiff Joseph Mejia challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying him Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. Mejia alleged disability due to heart failure and high blood pressure since October 2007. Administrative Law Judge Robin J. Arzt denied the application on May 28, 2009, finding Mejia's impairments were severe but did not meet listed impairments and that he retained the residual functional capacity for light work. Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck reviewed the decision and found it supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, affirming the denial of benefits.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security Income BenefitsCongestive Heart FailureHypertensionCardiomyopathyResidual Functional CapacityALJ Decision ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewTreating Physician Rule
References
82
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06863 [188 AD3d 574]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2020

Mejia v. Unique Dev. Holding Corp

Plaintiff Santos Mejia sustained injuries when a load of lumber fell from a pallet during hoisting at a construction site, striking him. The Supreme Court initially granted Mejia partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed claims against defendant Certified Lumber Corporation. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, reinstating Mejia's common-law negligence claim against Certified and defendant Montrose Park, LLC's cross claims for contribution and indemnification against Certified. The court found triable issues of fact concerning Certified's negligence in securing or unloading the lumber, while affirming the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, noting Mejia's activity was covered under the statute.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceContributionIndemnificationAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyFalling ObjectTriable Issues of FactPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. ADJ7526620
Regular
Apr 17, 2014

MARTHA MEJIA vs. CAMACHO'S, INC., AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Martha Mejia's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed her Petition for Removal. The WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report, finding that the judge's decision was a final order subject to reconsideration. Therefore, the petition for removal was dismissed as procedurally improper.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJLab. Code § 5900administrative law judgefinal orderMARTHA MEJIACAMACHO'S INCAMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01449 [203 AD3d 815]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2022

Mejia v. 69 Mamaroneck Rd. Corp.

The plaintiff, Roger Mejia, a roofer, sustained personal injuries after falling through an unguarded hole on a roof during construction work. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied his motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but granted it for Labor Law § 241 (6). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order regarding Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court found that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to provide adequate safety devices against an elevation-related risk, which was a proximate cause of Mejia's injuries, and that the plaintiff's conduct was not the sole proximate cause.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentLiabilityElevation-related RiskProximate CauseSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentRooferUncovered OpeningAppellate Division
References
10
Case No. ADJ7411124
Regular
Jul 03, 2018

Francisco Mejia vs. David Pearson and Linda Pearson dba Dinah's Chicken, Zenith Insurance, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves applicant Francisco Mejia seeking reconsideration of an approved compromise and release agreement and stipulation for workers' compensation benefits. Mejia claimed he was experiencing stress, pain, and confusion during settlement negotiations, leading him to act illogically. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied his petition, finding that Mejia understood the terms of the settlements based on discussions with the judge and the presence of an information and assistance officer. The Board affirmed that Mejia's petition did not establish good cause to set aside the binding agreements.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseStipulation with Request for AwardQualified Medical Evaluatorpermanent disabilitypsyche claimsgood causemutual mistakeduress
References
7
Case No. ADJ4332905 (SAL 0109881)
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

JESUS RODRIGUEZ vs. BUD OF CALIFORNIA

California Physicians Network (CPN) and its representative, Dennise Mejia, were sanctioned $2,500.00 jointly and severally for filing a frivolous and untimely petition for reconsideration that lacked proper verification and contained erroneous facts. The Board dismissed their reconsideration request because it did not challenge a final order and was procedurally deficient. CPN and Mejia failed to respond to the Board's notice of intent to impose sanctions. The defendant's claim for additional trial-level costs and attorney's fees was deferred to the workers' compensation administrative law judge for initial determination.

ADJ4332905SAL 0109881Opinion and Decision After RemovalSanctionCalifornia Physicians NetworkDennise MejiaLien ClaimantLabor Code section 5813(a)Appeals Board Rule 10561Frivolous
References
6
Case No. ADJ3733087 (SAC 0298774)
Regular
May 28, 2009

Luis Mejia vs. MARQUEZ BROTHERS FOODS, INC., CIGA on behalf of PACIFIC NATIONAL, in liquidation, by its servicing facility, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

This case involves a worker, Luis Mejia, seeking reconsideration of an earlier denial of his petition by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Mejia's current petition attempts to rehash his original arguments and introduce a new case, *Barr v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* The WCAB dismisses this petition because it is an impermissibly successive filing. The Board states that parties aggrieved by a final decision must seek review from the Court of Appeal, not file further petitions with the WCAB.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationDismissalSuccessive PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationWrit of ReviewCourt of AppealOrder Denying ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationDisqualification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mejias v. Social Security Administration

Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a determination by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare denying him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The plaintiff's application, based on a disability claim stemming from bronchial asthma, was initially denied by an Administrative Law Judge in July 1976 and subsequently affirmed by the Appeals Council in December 1976. The court found that despite the plaintiff's subjective complaints of disability and submissions from medical social workers and treating physicians asserting a deterioration in his condition, the administrative record contained substantial evidence that his asthma responded to treatment and his symptoms were minimal. The court affirmed the Secretary's decision to deny SSI benefits, but dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to present additional, substantiated medical evidence to the Social Security Administration.

Supplemental Security IncomeSSI BenefitsDisability ClaimBronchial AsthmaAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTreating Physician OpinionSubjective SymptomsMedical Evidence
References
15
Case No. ADJ7410410
Regular
Oct 29, 2014

MARTHA REYES vs. TARGET, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Martha Reyes' petition for reconsideration. While a utilization review (UR) decision should be signed, failure to do so does not invalidate it, per *Dubon II*. The applicant's recourse was to request Independent Medical Review (IMR), which she did. Therefore, the prior UR decision remained valid for 12 months, rendering the timeliness of the employer's denial of a subsequent request for authorization immaterial.

Utilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewDubon IILabor Code Section 4610Request for AuthorizationTimelinessPetition for ReconsiderationWCABEn Banc DecisionClaims Administrator
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 128 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