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. ADJ9001538
Regular
Sep 14, 2018

, PEDRO MONTELONGO vs. MC ROOFING CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a WCJ's decision denying sanctions and attorneys' fees against defendants MC Roofing Corporation and its insurer, SCIF. The applicant alleged bad faith conduct by MC Roofing's owner, Manuel Cuevas, and sought sanctions against him and SCIF, as well as attorney's fees from retroactive temporary total disability benefits. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further investigate whether Cuevas is a defendant, whether his alleged misconduct can be imputed to MC Roofing, and if sanctions are appropriate. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the issue of sanctions against Cuevas.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPedro MontelongoMC Roofing CorporationState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental Findings of FactSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith ConductAttorney Fees
References
3
Case No. ADJ10851942
Regular
Mar 29, 2019

PEDRO RIVADENEYRA vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pedro Rivadeneyra's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed his Petition for Removal. The Board found that the sole issue challenged, treatment outside the Medical Provider Network (MPN), was an interlocutory order. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated here. Reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision were to issue.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMedical Provider Network (MPN)AOE/COEinterlocutory ordernon-final orderextraordinary remedysubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadequate remedy
References
2
Case No. ADJ1845129
Regular
Jun 11, 2009

PEDRO RODRIGUEZ vs. MAGREER, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to applicant Pedro Rodriguez. The Board found that the applicant's petition to reopen for new and further disability was timely filed within the five-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the Board rescinded the lower judge's decision which had dismissed the claim based on a mistaken jurisdictional time bar. The case is remanded for further proceedings to determine the extent of applicant's increased permanent disability.

New and Further DisabilityPetition to ReopenLabor Code Section 5410Statute of LimitationsJurisdictional BarPermanent Disability IndemnityQualified Medical EvaluatorVocational RehabilitationStipulated AwardAggravation of Injury
References
7
Case No. ADJ9145995
Regular
Mar 02, 2017

PEDRO SANCHEZ vs. JACK IN THE BOX, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision denies Pedro Sanchez's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), giving great weight to the judge's credibility determination from observing the witness. The Board found no substantial evidence to overturn the WCJ's decision. Additionally, the WCAB admonished applicant's attorney for failing to reference exhibits, noting proper service of the Summary of Evidence and the attorney's obligation to recall their own submissions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental ProceedingsTaking Additional EvidenceWCJCredibility DeterminationSummary of EvidenceOfficial Address RecordExhibitsGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Board
References
1
Case No. ADJ6946148
Regular
May 22, 2018

MAXIMILIANO RODELA vs. PEDRO & EDELMIRA VELASQUEZ dba LLANTERA TIRE CENTER

Defendant Pedro Velasquez petitioned for reconsideration of the Appeals Board's prior decision, which rescinded a WCJ's order and found applicant sustained injuries to multiple body parts. The Board dismissed the petition because defendant failed to properly serve it on all adverse parties, specifically the applicant and his own attorney. Even if service had been proper, the Board found the petition lacked merit, reiterating its prior reasoning regarding the bunkhouse rule and the sufficiency of evidence. Therefore, the Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalIncomplete ServiceLabor Code Section 5905WCAB Rule 10850Adverse PartiesProof of ServiceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundLaw Offices of Michael Singer
References
1
Case No. ADJ3983015 (GRO 0034612) ADJ4506616 (GRO 034613)
Regular
Jan 03, 2011

Pedro Villagrana vs. SOMBRILLA MANAGEMENT LLC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award. The applicant, Pedro Villagrana, claimed a psychiatric injury as a consequence of an orthopedic injury sustained on May 30, 2006. The Board found the prior decision, which barred the psychiatric claim due to insufficient employment duration with the new entity, Sombrilla Management, needed further evidentiary development. The matter was returned to the trial level to clarify the applicant's employer on January 1, 2006, and whether the business structure change constituted a new employer-employee relationship under Labor Code section 3208.3(d).

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)psychiatric injuryorthopedic injurycompensable consequencesix-month employment thresholdemployer-employee relationshipbusiness structure changenew employerlegal entityW-2 statements
References
1
Case No. 08-CV-3175 (JG)(JO)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2009

Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Bercosa Corp.

Century 21 Real Estate LLC sued Bercosa Corp. and its owner Pedro Bernard for breach of contract and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The defendants failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a motion for default judgment. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge John Gleeson adopted, finding the defendants liable. The court awarded Century 21 a total of $319,832.32 in monetary damages, including contract claims, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Additionally, the defendants were permanently enjoined from using the Century 21 Marks and ordered to cooperate in an audit of Bercosa’s books and records.

Default JudgmentTrademark InfringementLanham ActBreach of ContractFranchise AgreementMonetary DamagesInjunctive ReliefAttorneys' FeesAudit OrderWillful Violation
References
66
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02646 [204 AD3d 557]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

Villanueva v. O'Mara Org., Inc.

Pedro Villanueva, a freight elevator operator, was injured when electrical metallic tubes (EMTs) stacked by an Armor Electrical Corp. employee fell and struck him. The accident occurred at a construction site where The O'Mara Organization, Inc. was the general contractor and Armor was a subcontractor. The Supreme Court initially granted Villanueva partial summary judgment on liability against both O'Mara and Armor for common-law negligence. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified this decision. While affirming liability against Armor for creating the dangerous condition, the appellate court denied partial summary judgment against O'Mara, citing Villanueva's failure to demonstrate that O'Mara had actual or constructive notice of the improperly stacked materials, a prerequisite for general contractor liability when an injury stems from a dangerous condition rather than the method of work. The case was therefore modified to reflect O'Mara's lack of established notice regarding the hazard.

Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor liabilityDangerous conditionNotice requirementAppellate reviewWorkplace injuryConstruction site accident
References
3
Case No. ADJ738549 (VNO 0522332)
Regular
Dec 17, 2012

JOSE RAMIREZ vs. PEDRO ALARCON, dba ALARCON IMPORTS \u0026 EXPORTS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jose Ramirez's petition for reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Had the petition been verified, the WCAB would have denied it on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report, which found the applicant's credibility to be highly persuasive. Furthermore, the WCAB ordered the uninsured employer, Pedro Alarcon, to provide a verified statement of employee numbers as per Labor Code sections 3722(d) and (e) to determine applicable penalties. The WCAB also noted the employer had not secured workers' compensation insurance.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerified StatementLabor Code section 5902Uninsured EmployerWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReport and RecommendationWCJCredibilityLabor Code section 3722(d)Labor Code section 3722(e)
References
3
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07571 [133 AD3d 87]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2015

Quinones v. Olmstead Props., Inc.

Pedro Quinones, an employee of North Shore Neon Sign, was injured while painting graffiti on a billboard leased by Fuel Outdoor, LLC. He fell from concrete blocks, having reportedly forgone available safety equipment like a cherry picker, ladders, and a safety harness, which he claimed were inadequate due to site conditions. The Supreme Court initially granted Quinones partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, asserting a failure to provide proper safety devices. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding conflicting evidence regarding the adequacy of the safety devices and whether Quinones' actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby necessitating a trial. The dissenting opinion argued that Fuel's expert failed to adequately counter Quinones' claims of device inadequacy.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFall from heightSafety devicesSole proximate causeAppellate DivisionWorker injuryBillboard maintenanceConstruction accidentElevation risk
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 86 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