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
Jan 19, 2011

Turner v. City of New York

Petitioner was injured on April 14, 2009, and initially believed their claim was covered by Workers' Compensation, delaying legal counsel until July 13, 2010. Counsel promptly served a notice of claim and sought an order to deem it timely filed nunc pro tunc. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted this motion. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed the decision, ruling that the application made on July 14, 2010, was untimely. The court determined that the one-year and 90-day limitations period, as outlined in General Municipal Law § 50-i (1) and General Construction Law §§ 20, 58, had expired on July 13, 2010, rendering the application one day too late.

Notice of ClaimTimelinessNunc Pro TuncGeneral Municipal LawGeneral Construction LawLimitations PeriodAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationTort ActionMunicipality
References
5
Case No. ADJ6621190 (MF)
Regular
Jan 18, 2019

DEANNA CARROLL vs. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Deanna Carroll was previously declared a vexatious litigant in 2016, requiring pre-approval to file any requests with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In this decision, the WCAB reviewed a Petition for Removal for Cause filed by Carroll in propria persona on December 4, 2018. Finding no significant change in circumstances or newly discovered evidence since the prior determination, the WCAB declined to accept the petition for filing. Therefore, Carroll's petition was rejected as per the vexatious litigant pre-filing order.

Vexatious litigantpre-filing orderAppeals Board Rule 10782Petition for Removal for Causein pro pernew evidencechange in lawpresiding judgelicensed attorneydeclaration of readiness
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Salvet v. Union Carbide Linde Division

Claimant sustained two compensable injuries, leading to a permanent partial disability classification in 1983 with a nonschedule award of $95 per week. Subsequently, in 1984, the claimant was diagnosed with a 24.2% occupational binaural hearing loss, resulting in a schedule award of $105 per week for 36.3 weeks. The Workers' Compensation Board, following an application by the carrier, reduced this schedule award to $10 per week. This reduction was based on Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a), which sets a maximum of $105 per week for compensation for permanent or temporary partial disability, indicating that the aggregate of both awards should not exceed this statutory limit. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the statutory maximum applies to the total of all permanent partial disability awards, irrespective of whether they are schedule or nonschedule awards.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational Hearing LossSchedule AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory MaximumAggregate AwardsWorkers' Compensation Board AppealStatutory InterpretationConcurrent Awards
References
6
Case No. ADJ1122093 (SAC 0279029) ADJ988134 (SAC 0267349)
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

BOBBIE SANDERS vs. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Bobbie Sanders, previously declared a vexatious litigant under Rule 10782, filed a Petition for Removal without court approval. Rule 10782 requires pre-filing authorization for pro se litigants, with exceptions for licensed attorneys. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because there was no significant change in circumstances or new evidence to warrant re-litigation of previously determined issues. Therefore, the document was not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantpre-filing orderAppeals Board Rule 10782Petition for Removalin pro perworkers' compensationEmployment Development DepartmentState Compensation Insurance FundADJ1122093ADJ988134
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1983

Claim of Palumbo v. Transport Masters International, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board initially denied a claim due to late filing and lack of advance compensation payment. A subsequently located disability benefits file was reviewed by the Board in the interest of justice. However, the Board found no evidence within this file to indicate a claim for compensation was filed as required by section 28 of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that only questions of fact were presented. The court concluded that the Board's factual findings were conclusive as they were supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' Compensation BoardClaim Filing DeadlineDisability Benefits FileSubstantial EvidenceQuestions of FactAppellate ReviewTime LimitationAdvance PaymentSection 28Administrative Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ9800793
Regular
Oct 06, 2016

TRAVIS TIDWELL vs. PRO TRAFFIC SERVICES, COMPANION PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

In Tidwell v. Pro Traffic Services, the applicant, Travis Tidwell, petitioned for reconsideration of a July 12, 2016 decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This allows the Board to gain a complete understanding of the record for a just decision. All future filings related to the petition must now be submitted directly to the Commissioners' office in San Francisco, not district offices or e-filed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardTravis TidwellPro Traffic ServicesCompanion Property and Casualty Insurance CompanyIntercare PasadenaSan Diego District OfficeStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gabisch v. J. F. C. Rental Corp.

Martin C. Gabisch died from injuries sustained in a work-related accident on March 28, 1985. His parents, Martin J. Gabisch and his wife (referred to as Claimant Mother), filed a claim for compensation asserting dependency. Initially, a finding of dependence was made, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this, concluding that the claimants were not wholly or partially dependent on the decedent. The claimants subsequently appealed this Board decision. The court reviewed the evidence, noting that the deceased contributed approximately $550 per month to the family income, while the claimant father earned about $3,000 per month. The court determined that the evidence presented did not establish that the claimants were dependent upon the decedent, as they needed to prove they were not independently self-supporting. Consequently, the Board’s decision was affirmed.

Parental DependencyWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewFinancial SupportWork-Related AccidentDependency ClaimBoard DecisionAffirmation
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02513 [182 AD3d 954]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Colon (Pd 10276, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Nicanor Colon filed for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing operation of his cleaning business, leading the Department of Labor to assess PD 10276, Inc., doing business as Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems of the Hudson Valley, for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge initially ruled Colon an independent contractor, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed this decision, finding Colon and similarly situated individuals to be employees. PD 10276, Inc. appealed the Board's decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that there was substantial evidence of an employment relationship based on the indicia of control exercised by Jan-Pro Cleaning over its unit franchisees, similar to findings in prior cases like Matter of Baez. The court highlighted requirements like certification, provision of supplies, periodic inspections, and noncompetition clauses as supporting the Board's conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent Contractor StatusEmployment RelationshipFranchise AgreementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceJan-Pro Cleaning SystemsDepartment of LaborUnit FranchiseesLabor Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ12634746
Regular
Nov 07, 2025

BLANCA ARRIOLA vs. OAK VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, BETA HEALTHCARE GROUP

The applicant, Blanca Arriola, filed a pro per Petition for Reconsideration on August 25, 2025, challenging a decision from June 20, 2025, despite being represented by counsel. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the petition to be untimely, as it exceeded the 25-day statutory limit for filing. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction. The decision also clarified recent amendments to Labor Code section 5909 concerning the Appeals Board's 60-day action period and notification requirements for case transmission.

Petition for ReconsiderationPro Per FilingUntimely PetitionLabor Code § 5909Appeals BoardTransmission of CaseElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Case EventsProof of ServiceReport
References
9
Case No. ADJ1959622 (AHM 0143618) ADJ3555484 (AHM 0143619)
Regular
Feb 14, 2011

KAI-SEN TSAI vs. SUN SALES LA, INC., UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND, Rosa Lam

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Rosa Lam's petition for reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release because it was filed untimely. Lam, acting "in pro per" despite being represented by counsel, alleged fraud, non-industrial causes, witness credibility issues, and ineffective assistance of her attorney who allegedly coerced her into signing the settlement. The Board found the petition was filed 29 days after the order, exceeding the 20-day jurisdictional deadline. Even if timely, the Board would have denied it, as ineffective assistance of counsel is not grounds to set aside an order and no undue influence was demonstrated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSun Sales LAInc.Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundRosa LamPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseIn Pro PerFraudulent ClaimsNon-Industrial Causes
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 9,196 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