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

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. ADJ8394203
Regular
Oct 08, 2013

Anthony Miranda vs. Fresno Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Anthony Miranda's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision that his injury claim was barred under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). Miranda failed to prove any of the statutory exceptions, specifically that his employer had notice of the injury before his termination notice, that his pre-termination medical records documented the injury, or that the injury occurred after his termination notice. The Board found that Miranda admitted he did not report the injury until after his termination and that no medical evidence existed prior to his termination notice. Therefore, his claim for the May 9, 2012, bus accident injury was denied.

Labor Code 3600(a)(10)Petition for ReconsiderationDenial of ReconsiderationTimeliness of ClaimNotice of TerminationPre-Termination InjuryMedical RecordsSurveillance VideoIndustrial InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ10268949
Regular
Nov 23, 2016

ELOY DELA TORRE FERNANDEZ vs. MERCHANT'S LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that barred the applicant's claim due to a post-termination filing defense. The applicant claimed exceptions to this defense, arguing he received pre-termination treatment and that his date of injury, under Labor Code § 5412, occurred after his termination. The WCAB found insufficient evidence to decide the pre-termination treatment exception and remanded the case to clarify the applicant's date of injury under § 5412, as this date's post-termination status would be an exception to the defense. The prior order was rescinded and the case returned for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination DefenseCumulative InjuryDate of InjurySection 5412Compensable DisabilityTrier of Fact
References
3
Case No. ADJ10052997
Regular
Mar 06, 2017

JESUS LLAMAS RUIZ vs. FLINTRIDGE RIDING CLUB, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an employer's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board finding that the applicant sustained work-related injuries. The employer argued the post-termination defense applied because no pre-termination medical records existed. However, the Board denied reconsideration, finding the applicant met an exception to the defense. This exception, under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)(D), applies when the date of injury, defined by disability and knowledge of employment causation, occurs after the termination date. The Board affirmed the applicant demonstrated this exception, making the lack of pre-termination medical records irrelevant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFlintridge Riding ClubState Compensation Insurance FundJesus Llamas RuizPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-Termination DefenseException (D)
References
0
Case No. ADJ9313922
Regular
Apr 29, 2015

CLIFFORD REYNOLDS vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant, Clifford Reynolds, sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that barred his back injury claim as a post-termination issue. The Board granted reconsideration, finding that his back injury claim is not barred under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). This is because pre-termination medical records contained evidence of the injury, fulfilling an exception to the post-termination defense. The Board amended the findings to reflect that the applicant's neck, back, and left shoulder injuries are not barred.

Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination claimCumulative trauma injuryDate of injuryMedical recordsNotice of terminationIndustrial causationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
3
Case No. ADJ3388364 (VNO 0526713) ADJ2633182 (VNO 0342427)
Regular
Oct 24, 2014

RICHARD FROMKNECHT vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying him benefits from the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF). The applicant claimed a pre-existing disability from a 1996 spinal injury caused further permanent disability with a subsequent 1998 spinal injury. However, both injuries became permanent and stationary concurrently, meaning there was no distinct pre-existing ratable disability at the time of the second injury. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the criteria for SIBTF benefits under Labor Code section 4751, and his petition for reconsideration was denied.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderStipulations with Requests for AwardsAgreed Medical Evaluatorapportionmentpermanent and stationarypreexisting disabilityindustrial injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2002

Termine v. Continental Baking Co.

Salvatore Termine, a plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted summary judgment to the defendant, Continental Baking Company (CBC), dismissing his personal injury complaint. Termine was injured in October 1998 while employed by Interstate Brands Corporation (IBC). CBC, the record owner of the property, had merged with its parent IBC in 1995, and its authority to do business in New York terminated shortly thereafter. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that Termine's action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 because his employer, IBC, was the actual owner of the property at the time of the accident, not CBC. The court also rejected Termine's argument regarding CBC's failure to file a deed, stating Real Property Law § 291 protects purchasers, not personal injury claimants.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityMerger of CorporationsReal Property OwnershipSummary JudgmentPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityDelaware Corporation LawNew York Business LawDeed Filing
References
6
Case No. ADJ2317869 (OAK 0344295)
Regular
Mar 15, 2011

ALLEN BONET vs. HONDA OF OAKLAND, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior finding that applicant sustained industrial injury to his spine. The Board found applicant's claim is barred by the post-termination defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). Applicant failed to prove any exceptions to this defense, as there was no substantial evidence of employer notice of the alleged injury prior to termination. Furthermore, pre-termination medical records did not document the claimed back injury.

Allen BonetHonda of OaklandMatrix Absence ManagementADJ2317869OAK 0344295Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationWCJindustrial injuryspine
References
0
Case No. VNO 487026
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

Frank Lujan vs. CG MILLER INC., Republic Indemnity Company of California

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the disallowance of a $\$ 12,547.06$ lien for medical treatment expenses. This decision was based on the finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, as the claim was filed after the applicant's termination and no exceptions under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) were met. The employer lacked prior notice of the injury, and there was insufficient evidence of pre-termination medical records or an injury occurring after notice of termination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryLow BackMover/PackerSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)
References
3
Case No. ADJ4177198
Regular
Jul 09, 2009

JESUS HERNANDEZ vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIOS.

This case involves an applicant, Jesus Hernandez, who claims industrial injuries to his back, lower extremities, psyche, and respiratory system while employed by Warner Bros. Studios. The employer sought reconsideration of a prior order, arguing the claims were barred by the post-termination defense under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that the applicant's claimed respiratory system injury is not barred by the post-termination defense. The Board affirmed the prior order, finding that evidence of these injuries existed in pre-termination medical records.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defenseindustrial injuriesjanitorback injurylower extremitiespsyche injuryrespiratory system injuryinternal systems
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 14,761 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