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. 99 Civ. 2258
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Henderson

Plaintiff Rosemary Smith, a former Postal Service employee, filed a Title VII action against the Postmaster General, William J. Henderson, alleging termination due to race and gender discrimination. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's federal complaint was not filed within the statutory ninety-day period after receiving the final administrative decision. The plaintiff sought equitable tolling, claiming an EEO counselor advised her she would have additional time to file. The court found that the plaintiff received explicit notice of the ninety-day filing period in the final administrative decision, contradicting the alleged earlier advice, and failed to act diligently to reconcile the conflicting information. Consequently, the court denied equitable relief and granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice due to untimely filing.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEquitable TollingPro Se LitigantUntimely FilingAdministrative ExhaustionFederal CourtRacial DiscriminationGender Discrimination
References
28
Case No. ADJ11535411
Regular
Jul 19, 2019

TERRI HARRISON vs. CITY OF TORRANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, overturning a prior ruling that presumed the applicant's injury compensable due to a late denial. The Board found that the defendant's denial letter, mailed on December 26, 2018, was timely because the 90-day presumption period expired on December 25, 2018, a court holiday, making the next business day the deadline. The employer's inability to definitively prove the claim form's receipt date led the Board to infer a receipt date of September 26, 2018, thus making the December 26 denial compliant with Labor Code section 5402. Consequently, the applicant's injury is not presumed compensable.

Labor Code section 5402presumption of compensabilitytimely denialclaim form filing dateCode of Civil Procedure section 1013WCAB Rule 10507(a)court holidaybusiness day extensionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. ADJ7764965, ADJ7764962
Regular
May 04, 2016

TONY RODRIGUEZ vs. CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING AND ENGINEERING COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns the timeliness of a Utilization Review (UR) denial for medical treatment. The Board treated the applicant's Petition for Removal as a Petition for Reconsideration, ultimately denying it. The Board agreed with the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) that the UR denial was timely because Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a state holiday, was correctly excluded from the five-day review period. The Board also cautioned against post-hearing discovery attempts by applicant's counsel.

Utilization ReviewTimelinessExpedited HearingPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewBusiness DayMartin Luther King DayStatutory InterpretationRegulatory Provisions
References
1
Case No. ADJ3423900 (ANA 0320773)
Regular
Sep 16, 2009

Donna Smith vs. Neiman Marcus, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its decision regarding Donna Smith's claim against Neiman Marcus and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Although applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely filed, it was not brought to the Board's attention within the statutory 60-day period due to administrative oversight. The Board, applying due process principles and citing relevant case law, determined that the 60-day review period begins when the Board has actual notice of the petition. Therefore, the untimely review of the petition led to its denial on the merits, upholding the WCJ's previous decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code §5909Due ProcessShipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.State Farm Fire and Casualty v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Stipulated AwardFraudMisrepresentationMutual Mistake of Fact
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spira v. Ethical Culture School

Bernard R. Spira, a plaintiff, sued his former employer, Ethical Culture School, and three individuals for age discrimination. He filed the complaint with the EEOC in September 1992 and received a 'Right-to-Sue' letter on November 8, 1994, which stated a 90-day period to file suit. Spira filed suit on March 7, 1995, approximately 114 calendar days after receipt. He argued that an EEOC worker orally misinformed him that the 90-day period was in working days, not calendar days. The defendants moved to dismiss based on the failure to comply with the 90-day limitations period. The court granted the motion, finding no extraordinary circumstances or affirmative misconduct by the EEOC to warrant equitable tolling of the limitations period.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingEEOC ProceduresRight-to-Sue LetterMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Affirmative MisconductFederal Courts
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casey v. D'Elia

The petitioner sought medical assistance for her hospitalized husband, but her application was denied by the Nassau County Department of Social Services due to perceived excess resources and improper calculation of expenses. The petitioner was also not informed of her right to a fair hearing. The State Commissioner of Social Services affirmed the denial and ruled that the initial denial was beyond review due to a missed 60-day request window. The court found that the local agency erred in calculating the petitioner's expenses and in failing to consider unpaid medical bills. Furthermore, the court determined that the 60-day limitation period should be tolled because the petitioner was never properly notified of it. Consequently, the court annulled the State Commissioner's determination and remitted the matter to the local agency to re-evaluate the petitioner's eligibility for medical assistance.

Medical AssistanceSocial Services LawCPLR Article 78Eligibility for BenefitsResource CalculationFair Hearing NoticeTolling of LimitationsAdministrative ReviewRemittal for ReconsiderationHospitalization Costs
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 1974

Russell v. Dumpson

Petitioner (Mrs. Russell) initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge a May 9, 1974 decision by the New York State Department of Social Services, which affirmed the denial of retroactive public assistance by the New York City Department of Social Services. The petitioner and her husband had taken two children, Harry and Kennedy Drayton, into their home based on assurances from a social services employee that assistance would be provided. Despite filing an application and making numerous inquiries, assistance for the period the children resided with them was denied, and only later partially granted for one child. The respondents denied retroactive assistance, citing regulations that assistance meets current needs and the petitioner's alleged failure to request a fair hearing within 60 days. The court found errors of law in the respondents' decision, ruling that the Department could not penalize the petitioners for its own inaction and that the 60-day period did not commence without written notification. Consequently, the court annulled the decision and directed respondents to issue a retroactive grant of assistance to the petitioner.

Public AssistanceRetroactive GrantArticle 78 ProceedingSocial Services LawFair HearingAdministrative ReviewDue ProcessAgency InactionChildren's WelfareState Regulations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Texaco Inc.

Texaco Inc. and its two subsidiaries, Texaco Capital Inc. and Texaco Capital N.V., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Texaco sought to extend the exclusive periods for filing a reorganization plan, citing the massive size of the case, over 300,000 creditors, and the pending appeal of a $10.3 billion judgment against it by Pennzoil Company. Pennzoil, a leading general unsecured creditor, moved to reduce these exclusivity periods to propose its own creditor's plan. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Howard Schwartzberg, considered the unprecedented size and complexity of Texaco's bankruptcy case, which is the largest ever filed in the U.S., and the unresolved multi-billion dollar Pennzoil judgment. The court found that Texaco had established sufficient cause for an extension, while Pennzoil failed to demonstrate cause for reduction. Consequently, Texaco's motion to extend the exclusivity periods by another 120 and 180 days was granted, and Pennzoil's motion to shorten them was denied.

BankruptcyChapter 11Exclusivity PeriodPlan of ReorganizationCorporate DebtorsComplex LitigationDebtor-Creditor DisputeJudgment AppealSouthern District of New YorkCorporate Restructuring
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 6,261 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