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. 2020 NY Slip Op 03775
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2020

Mendoza v. Enchante Accessories, Inc.

The plaintiff, Jesus Mendoza, sued Enchante Accessories, Inc. for personal injuries after falling from a stock picking machine in a warehouse. Mendoza alleged Enchante was negligent in supervision, training, and providing safety equipment. Enchante countered that it had ceded control of the warehouse and that safety devices were available, with Mendoza's non-use being the sole cause. A jury found both parties negligent, assigning 25% liability to Enchante. The Supreme Court denied Enchante's post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, to set aside the verdict, or to amend its answer to include a Workers' Compensation defense. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings and that Enchante's motion to amend its answer was procedurally deficient and lacked substantive proof.

Personal InjuryNegligenceWarehouse AccidentStock PickerJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ProcedureCPLR 4401CPLR 4404Workers Compensation DefenseSafety Training
References
16
Case No. ADJ 6989600 ADJ 7517232 ADJ 7597741 ADJ 9169430
Regular
May 02, 2016

RENE MENDOZA (Deceased) DOLORES MENDOZA (Dependent) vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AUTHORITY; YORK

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a petition for removal filed by a petitioner, who subsequently withdrew it. As a result, the Board ordered the dismissal of the petition. The case originates from the claims of Dolores Mendoza, dependent of the deceased Rene Mendoza, against the City of Los Angeles Department of Housing Authority and York. This dismissal pertains to a decision issued on March 16, 2016.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissedApplicantDependentDefendantCase Nos.Van Nuys District OfficeDecisionPetitioner
References
0
Case No. ADJ7503292
Regular
Mar 26, 2013

RIGOBERTO MENDOZA vs. PIZZA MIZZA, GUARD INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Rigoberto Mendoza's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) finding that Mendoza did not sustain the alleged industrial injury. The WCJ's decision was based on an evaluation of witness credibility and inconsistencies in Mendoza's account of the injury. Specifically, the WCJ found the employer's testimony more credible regarding the timing and nature of the reported injury. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, leading to the denial of reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenialCredibilityGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ApplicantEmployerIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryLeg Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nick's Brick Oven Pizza, Inc. v. Excelsior Insurance

Nick’s Brick Oven Pizza, Inc. sought a declaratory judgment against its general liability insurance carriers to compel them to defend and indemnify it in an underlying personal injury action involving Travis Schmidt, an alleged temporary worker. The carriers denied coverage based on a policy exclusion for "insured" employees, but the policy had an exception for "temporary workers." The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Nick's Pizza, finding Schmidt was a temporary worker and the policy's term "furnished" was ambiguous, which was construed against the insurer. The appellate court affirmed this decision, mandating the insurance carriers to defend and indemnify Nick’s Brick Oven Pizza, Inc. in the underlying action.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentPolicy InterpretationTemporary WorkerAmbiguity in ContractDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment
References
11
Case No. 2014-1712 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2017

Daily Med. Equip. Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Global Liberty Ins.

Daily Medical Equipment Distribution Center, Inc., as assignee of Juan Mendoza, appealed an order from the Civil Court concerning no-fault benefits. The Civil Court had held Global Liberty Insurance's motion for summary judgment in abeyance. This abeyance was pending a Workers' Compensation Board determination on Mendoza's eligibility for workers' compensation benefits. The Appellate Term dismissed the appeal, ruling that an order holding a motion in abeyance is not appealable as of right under CPLR 5701 (a) (2). Consequently, the court declined to grant leave to appeal, thus upholding the procedural decision to await the Workers' Compensation Board's findings.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation BoardAppeal DismissedSummary Judgment MotionAbeyanceAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionCivil Procedure Law and RulesFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ4363746 (AHM 0151277)
Regular
Oct 17, 2011

MARGARITA MENDOZA vs. RALPH'S GROCERY

This order dismisses Margarita Mendoza's Petition for Reconsideration in her workers' compensation case against Ralph's Grocery. The Appeals Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, finding the petition untimely. Even if timely, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits based on the judge's reasoning. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissal OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportUntimely PetitionMerits DenialRalph's GrocerySelf-insuredADJ4363746AHM0151277
References
0
Case No. SAC 289384
Regular
Apr 04, 2008

NICK MILIVOJEVICH vs. UNITED AIRLINES

This case involves a clerical error in a prior award of attorney's fees for applicant Nick Milivojevich against United Airlines. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board corrected the award to reflect the correct appellate attorney's fees of $\$ 6,050.00$ and disallowed costs, maintaining its continuing jurisdiction to rectify such errors. The corrected award is payable to Farrell, Fraulob & Brown, A Professional Corporation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorOpinion and AwardAttorney's FeesAppellate Attorney's FeesCostsContinuing JurisdictionToccalinoMorganUnited Airlines
References
2
Case No. ADJ8770457
Regular
Apr 21, 2015

NICK IVANOFF vs. VIRONEX, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Nick Ivanoff's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found that a petition for reconsideration can only be filed from a "final" order, decision, or award, which must determine substantive rights or liabilities, or a fundamental threshold issue. The Judge's decision in this case was deemed an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision, not a final one. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as it was improperly filed.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
4
Case No. ADJ8479463
Regular
Oct 02, 2014

HORTENCIA MENDOZA vs. BAUTISTA FARM, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Hortencia Mendoza's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision that determined substantive rights. The order for liens to be "paid, adjusted or litigated" was not a final resolution. The Board also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. This ruling emphasizes that reconsideration is only available for final orders disposing of substantive rights and liabilities.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalRemovalInterlocutoryFinal OrderSubstantive RightsLiabilitiesAdjustmentLiensPrejudice
References
5
Case No. ADJ8768908
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

GERARDO MENDOZA MEDINA vs. MERCHANTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE, CLAIMQUEST, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gerardo Mendoza Medina's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the Board only grants it if a party shows substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant failed to demonstrate that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 91 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