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. ADJ9 088743
Regular
Jan 26, 2016

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Leo Estrella's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that his cumulative injury claim against the Milwaukee Brewers and San Francisco Giants was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The Board found that applicant knew or should have known of his right to file a claim more than one year prior to filing, precluding application of the five-year "new and further disability" statute. Applicant's contention that the statute of limitations was tolled due to lack of knowledge was rejected, as the evidence indicated he was aware of the industrial causation of his injuries by 2009. One commissioner dissented, arguing the date of injury should be 2013 and that defendants failed to prove applicant's knowledge of his rights or the statute of limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative InjuryStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Labor Code Section 5410New and Further DisabilityTollingDate of InjuryIndustrial CausationProfessional Baseball Player
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This dissenting opinion concerns the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) in a case where the plaintiff, Ronald C. Smith, was injured while a crane was being used as a winch to drag equipment horizontally. The dissent argues against the majority's interpretation that the statute applies if a safety device is usually related to elevation risk, regardless of its actual use at the time of the accident. It contends that the statute's applicability depends on the activity performed and that the injury was not due to an elevation-related risk, emphasizing that the 'effects of gravity' phrase in the statute is context-specific to elevation-related accidents, not general gravitational forces.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Workplace InjuryCrane AccidentStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionElevation RiskSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewGravity EffectsWinch Operation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Charles Wayne Davidson injured his shoulder in 2001 while working for Lewis Brothers Bakery and filed a workers' compensation claim, also naming the Second Injury Fund. After a voluntary non-suit in 2004, Davidson refiled the claim later that year, after the one-year statute of limitations had run. The Fund argued that the "savings statute" (Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105(a)) did not apply to claims against it due to sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court of Tennessee agreed, holding that the savings statute does not waive the Fund's sovereign immunity and thus does not "save" claims against it after the statute of limitations has expired. The court modified the trial court's order, dismissing the Second Injury Fund and removing its liability for benefits and costs.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundSovereign ImmunitySavings StatuteStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Non-SuitTennessee LawAppellate ReviewPermanent Total DisabilityWorkplace Injury
References
10
Case No. ADJ8144649 ADJ8506413
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's untimely petition for reconsideration. The Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the prior award of an industrial injury to the applicant's left knee on April 15, 2010. The Board found this claim barred by the statute of limitations because the applicant failed to provide timely notice of an injury requiring more than first-aid to her employer. Consequently, the applicant will take nothing further.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsIndustrial InjuryJoint Findings and AwardCumulative TraumaWCJTolled StatuteClaim FormNotice of Rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2008

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Petitioner, Rose J.E., sought accidental disability retirement benefits due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from her observation and subsequent emergency duties related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Respondent Comptroller denied her application, citing a failure to provide timely written notice as mandated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 63 (c). The Supreme Court dismissed her CPLR article 78 petition, a decision that was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, rejecting the petitioner's arguments that the widely-known events of 9/11, oral notice, her mental state as good cause, or an executive order suspending time limitations, satisfied or excused the notice requirement. The court found that the statute specifically requires notice of the member's injuries and incapacity, which the events of 9/11 alone would not convey. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the arguments regarding oral notice or the applicability of good cause exceptions or the Executive Order to extend the notice period.

Accidental Disability Retirement BenefitsPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder9/11 Terrorist AttacksTimely Written NoticeRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR Article 78Good Cause ExceptionExecutive OrderWorkers' Compensation LawAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case consolidates 13 separate 9/11-related applications seeking leave to serve late notices of claim against the City of New York. Petitioners allege exposure to toxic substances during rescue, recovery, construction, and demolition operations at Ground Zero. The court addresses significant questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the applicable statute of limitations under the ATSSSA (Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001), and the commencement of proceedings by filing. Ultimately, the court grants the petitioners' applications, allowing them to serve late notices of claim, deeming them timely served nunc pro tunc, despite jurisdictional ambiguities which are reserved for the federal court.

9/11 claimstoxic exposurelate notice of claimstatute of limitationssubject matter jurisdictionfederal preemptionGeneral Municipal LawCPLRspecial proceedingsWorld Trade Center
References
32
Case No. ADJ237189 (RIV 0058701)
Regular
May 22, 2009

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case concerns an applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration regarding appellate costs and attorney's fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, which had affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the heart and prostate but barred the skin cancer claim due to the statute of limitations. The Board ordered the applicant's attorney to reimburse the applicant $390 improperly solicited and received, while ordering the defendant to pay appellate costs of $382.79 upon confirmation of the reimbursement. The Board declined to increase the attorney's fee, finding it already exceeded typical ranges and that the attorney had not demonstrated entitlement to more.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemittiturStatute of LimitationsSkin CancerHeart InjuryProstate CancerPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeeAppellate Costs
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2004

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The petitioner sought to serve a late notice of claim after developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to exposure at the World Trade Center site between 2001 and 2002. The Supreme Court initially denied the application based on a technical affidavit defect and later denied a renewed application as untimely, citing the expiration of the one-year-and-90-day statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the claim accrued in December 2001 when symptoms manifested, not in February 2003 with the formal diagnosis. The majority rejected the argument that the renewed motion should relate back to the original or that the court's delay in decision-making warranted a different outcome. A dissenting opinion argued for reversal, asserting the initial application was timely, the technical defect minor, and the court's delay and invitation to renew should compel consideration on the merits.

Late Notice of ClaimStatute of LimitationsWorld Trade Center ExposureChronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseAccrual DateProcedural DefectsMotion to RenewAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionGeneral Municipal Law
References
25
Case No. ADJ2756334
Regular
Dec 06, 2010

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error, amending the original award to clearly state the applicant's permanent disability rating is 83%. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant's claim for internal injury is barred by the statute of limitations. The applicant argued the statute should not apply as the internal injuries were a consequence of the original injury and that defendant should be estopped from pleading the statute.

WCABIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityStatute of LimitationsPetition for ReconsiderationNew and Further DisabilityCompensable ConsequenceEstoppelClerical ErrorFindings and Award
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Petitioners, including HLP Properties, LLC, challenged the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) 2007 denial of their application to enroll a contaminated Manhattan site in the Brownfield Cleanup Program (BCP). The site, formerly a manufactured gas plant, was heavily contaminated with coal tar and other hazardous substances, with petitioners seeking BCP benefits for redevelopment into residential and commercial highrises. DEC justified its denial by applying internal 'guidance factors' that deemed the property not 'idled, abandoned, or underutilized' and its redevelopment not 'complicated by contamination,' citing an existing voluntary cleanup agreement with nonparty Con Edison. The court ruled that DEC's application of these extra-statutory guidance factors constituted an unlawful attempt to legislate, going against the clear legislative intent of the BCPA to encourage voluntary remediation of contaminated sites. Consequently, the court reversed DEC's decision, declaring the property a 'brownfield site' under the statute and ordering its acceptance into the BCP, while denying petitioners' claim for costs and disbursements.

Brownfield Cleanup ProgramEnvironmental Conservation LawCPLR Article 78Administrative Agency OverreachStatutory ConstructionVoluntary RemediationContaminated Land RedevelopmentJudicial Review of Agency ActionEconomic Guidance FactorsLegislative Intent
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 16,413 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