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

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2005

Hakala v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.

This case addresses a defendant's motion to dismiss a plaintiff's petition regarding an arbitration award, specifically concerning the ninety-day limitations period under N.Y. CPLR § 7511(a). The plaintiff's filing was one day late, received on March 24, 2004, for an award received on December 24, 2003. The court examined arguments including excusable neglect, pro se status, and equitable estoppel, deeming them inapplicable for extending the statute of limitations. However, the court acknowledged the plaintiff's claim of erroneous instructions from the Court’s Pro Se Office as potentially substantial, citing the precedent of *Soto v. Freda*. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the application to confirm part of the award was denied as timely, while the motion to dismiss the application to vacate or modify part of the award was denied without prejudice, pending an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual dispute regarding the Pro Se Office's advice.

Arbitration AwardStatute of LimitationsTimeliness DisputeCPLREquitable EstoppelPro Se LitigationExcusable NeglectCourt ErrorFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
10
Case No. AHM 107719, AHM 106525, AHM 106165, AHM 106205, AHM106504, AHM 106473
Regular
Oct 19, 2007

MARIA RODRIGUEZ, MARTHA GARCIA, EVELIA MONTES, MARIA RAMIREZ, LIDIA GODOY, MARIA RAMOS vs. MOTEL 6, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied petitions for reconsideration filed by applicants represented *pro se*, finding the petitions procedurally defective due to lack of original signatures, improper verification, and failure to state all material evidence. Furthermore, the applicants were represented by counsel at the time of filing, and their *pro se* filings were unauthorized. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicants lacked credibility and failed to prove industrial cumulative trauma injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPropria PersonaConsolidated CasesCumulative TraumaCredibility DeterminationWCJ FindingsSubstitution of AttorneyVerified PetitionLabor Code Section 5902
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rifenburgh v. James

Petitioner was injured in an automobile accident while en route to an employer-directed physical examination and subsequently sought workers' compensation benefits. He also commenced a third-party action, which was settled without the workers' compensation carrier's consent or timely judicial approval. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge closed the case after petitioner failed to obtain judicial approval. Petitioner later attempted to reopen the claim by seeking nunc pro tunc judicial approval, but Supreme Court denied the application due to undue delay. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial, concluding that the delay was attributable to the petitioner's own neglect, thereby barring future workers' compensation benefits.

Automobile AccidentThird-Party ActionSettlement without ConsentJudicial ApprovalNunc Pro TuncUndue DelayPetitioner NeglectWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCourse of EmploymentAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston v. Teamsters Local 210

Pro se plaintiffs, including Houston, filed a lawsuit against an ERISA-regulated fund seeking severance pay. They argued they were entitled to benefits because their termination occurred 'within one year of' their employer ceasing operations, interpreting the phrase to include the period before cessation. The defendants contended this phrase referred only to the period after cessation and also argued that all plaintiffs, except Houston, failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the non-Houston plaintiffs failed to exhaust remedies. For Houston's claim, the court found the plan language unambiguously supported the defendants' prospective interpretation of the 'within one year of' clause. Alternatively, even if ambiguous, the plan granted the defendants discretionary authority, and their consistent interpretation was deemed rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

ERISA BenefitsSeverance Pay DisputePlan InterpretationSummary Plan Description (SPD)Administrative ExhaustionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDiscretionary AuthorityEmployer CessationPro Se LitigantsMotion for Summary Judgment
References
32
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00200 [179 AD3d 1272]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Jones v. Chedeville, Inc.

Claimant Kanica Jones appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied her application for Board review. The Board found her counsel's application form RB-89 incomplete, specifically concerning question 15 about objections made at the hearing. Additionally, Jones's pro se application was rejected for not being in the proper format and for untimeliness. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that adherence to application completeness and format requirements is critical and that prejudice does not need to be shown for non-compliance. The court concluded that the Board acted within its discretion in denying both applications for review.

Appellate DivisionBoard ReviewProcedural DenialForm RB-89 Non-complianceCompleteness RequirementFraud AllegationTimeliness of FilingPro Se SubmissionsAdministrative ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder v. CNA Insurance

In January 1996, the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while working and received workers’ compensation benefits from CNA Insurance Companies. She later settled a third-party negligence action for $32,500 without obtaining the required consent from CNA. The petitioner sought judicial approval, nunc pro tunc, for this settlement. The Supreme Court initially granted approval, but the appellate court reversed and remitted due to insufficient documentation. Following the submission of additional evidence, the Supreme Court again granted approval, prompting the current appeal. The appellate court reviewed the relevant factors, noting evidence suggesting difficulty in proving serious injury and that respondent CNA suffered no prejudice from the delay. Despite the normal three-month limit for such applications, the Supreme Court's exercise of broad discretion in approving the settlement was not deemed an abuse. Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentThird-Party SettlementJudicial ApprovalNunc Pro TuncConsent RequirementDiscretionary AuthorityAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier
References
4
Case No. ADJ1622633
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

SALVADOR CONTRERAS vs. M&C FARM LABOR, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE PASADENA, PAULA INSURANCE

This case involved an applicant seeking to reopen his workers' compensation claim due to new and further disability. The WCAB denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision that the applicant's petition to reopen was barred by the five-year statute of limitations. This was because the petition was improperly filed in the wrong district office, violating WCAB rules requiring filing in the office with venue. Despite the applicant's pro se status and his argument for liberal construction, the majority found no alleged excusable neglect and thus upheld the dismissal. A dissenting opinion argued that the applicant's actions demonstrated mistake and excusable neglect, and that the WCAB should have excused the procedural error to allow a hearing on the merits.

Petition to ReopenStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5410Labor Code Section 5804WCAB Rule 10390WCAB Rule 10450Proper VenueDistrict Office FilingMistakeInadvertence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antine v. City of New York

This case consolidates 13 separate 9/11-related applications seeking leave to serve late notices of claim against the City of New York. Petitioners allege exposure to toxic substances during rescue, recovery, construction, and demolition operations at Ground Zero. The court addresses significant questions regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the applicable statute of limitations under the ATSSSA (Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act of 2001), and the commencement of proceedings by filing. Ultimately, the court grants the petitioners' applications, allowing them to serve late notices of claim, deeming them timely served nunc pro tunc, despite jurisdictional ambiguities which are reserved for the federal court.

9/11 claimstoxic exposurelate notice of claimstatute of limitationssubject matter jurisdictionfederal preemptionGeneral Municipal LawCPLRspecial proceedingsWorld Trade Center
References
32
Case No. ADJ7785733; ADJ7632939
Regular
Mar 12, 2013

JOHN SHEK vs. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER OF OAKLAND, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves a pro se applicant who filed a successive petition for removal and request for an immediate stay after his prior petition was denied. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition, stating that the applicant cannot relitigate issues already decided. The applicant's proper recourse for challenging the WCAB's decision is to file a petition for writ of review with the Court of Appeal. The supplemental petition was also rejected as it was filed without prior permission.

Petition for RemovalDenying ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Supplemental PetitionSuccessive PetitionWrit of ReviewCourt of AppealLabor Code Section 5950Dismissal of PetitionEn Banc Consideration
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 13,325 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