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

Legere v. Eastern Ambulance, Inc.

Supreme Court abused its discretion in denying defendants’ motion for leave to serve an amended answer to allege the affirmative defense of exclusivity of workers’ compensation as plaintiffs’ remedy. The appellate court found that leave to amend shall be freely given absent prejudice or surprise. Defendants established a prima facie basis for assertion of the proposed defense, and plaintiffs failed to establish prejudice or surprise if the motion is granted. Therefore, the order was unanimously reversed, and the motion was granted.

Amended AnswerWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityLeave to AmendAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewCPLR 3025(b)Prejudice or SurprisePrima Facie BasisMotion GrantedOrder Reversed
References
4
Case No. ADJ6600712
Regular
Oct 22, 2009

DEBORAH ALLEN vs. SURPRISE VALLEY HOSPITAL, ALPHA FUND

Defendant's petition for reconsideration is dismissed because the order adjudicating venue is an intermediate procedural decision, not a "final" order. Even if considered a petition for removal, removal would be denied due to lack of significant prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLong Beach District OfficeRedding District OfficeFinal OrderInterim OrderProcedural DecisionIrreparable Harm
References
9
Case No. EUR 0040718
Regular
Jun 06, 2008

STEVE STACHEL vs. HUMBOLDT FLAKEBOARD, WAUSAU BUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's due process claim regarding temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. The Board found the applicant's assertion of un-authorized physical therapy was first raised at trial, surprising the defendant. Consequently, the Board struck the TTD award and remanded the matter for further development of the record on that issue.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Total Disability (TTD)Cumulative Industrial InjuryLeft Arm and WristFraudulent TestimonyDue ProcessNewly Discovered EvidenceReport and RecommendationMedical Treatment Authorization
References
5
Case No. ADJ10614811
Regular
Aug 19, 2019

JESUS ZUNIGA, vs. GAMA CONTRACTING SERVICE; BERKLEY SPECIALTY,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the dismissal of a lien claim. The lien claimant's representative failed to appear at a hearing, leading to the initial dismissal. While the lien claimant submitted declarations with incorrect hearing dates, the Board found that the dismissal should be reconsidered. The matter is returned to the trial level for a hearing on whether the dismissal should be set aside due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Tri County Medical Grouplien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lieninadvertent mistakeDeclaration of Ana MartinezReport and Recommendationsupplemental pleadinglien conferenceNotice of Intent to Dismiss
References
5
Case No. AHM 0057408
Regular
Apr 28, 2008

LINDALL. MILLER vs. LIFEWAY CHRISTIAN STORE, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves lien claimants seeking reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order dismissing their lien claims due to failure to appear at a status conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimants' petition for reconsideration as untimely. However, the Board noted that the lien claimants may still file a trial-level petition to set aside the dismissal based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalNotice of Intention to DismissStatus ConferenceCompromise and ReleaseWCJLabor Code § 5903Code of Civil Procedure § 1013(a)
References
1
Case No. ADJ3745140 MON 0273709
Regular
Jul 24, 2013

NORMAN MIRANDA vs. MZN CONSTRUCTION INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration after their lien was dismissed for failing to appear at trial. The Board found that the lien claimant's unsubstantiated claim of "human error" did not constitute good cause for their non-appearance. Their reliance on the *Fox v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.* case was unpersuasive as they failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect as required for relief. Therefore, the dismissal of the lien was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien Claim DismissalPetition for ReconsiderationLien ConferenceWCJ OrderFailure to AppearGood CauseHuman ErrorExcusable NeglectCode of Civil Procedure Section 473
References
1
Case No. ADJ8 453844
Regular
Jun 15, 2016

ISOBETH CABRERA vs. LABOR READY, ESIS

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of a dismissed lien. The lien was dismissed because the claimant failed to appear at a lien conference and subsequently file a properly verified objection detailing the excusable neglect. While the Board granted reconsideration, it intends to affirm the dismissal unless the claimant provides a sworn affidavit from a person with personal knowledge explaining the circumstances of the failure to appear. This affidavit must sufficiently detail the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention to Dismiss Lienverified objectionCode of Civil Procedure section 473Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Beverly Hills Multispecialty Group Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.failure to appear
References
6
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 32814(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Bonavita v. McNicholas

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which granted defendants Irving McNichoias and Professional Exterminating Co., Inc., leave to amend their answer to include an affirmative defense under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The appellate court affirmed this order, ruling that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion. The amendment was deemed not to cause prejudice or surprise and was neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, aligning with CPLR 3025 (b) and established case law.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmative DefenseLeave to AmendCPLR 3025(b)Appellate ReviewNassau County Supreme CourtCourt DiscretionPleading AmendmentCivil Procedure
References
4
Case No. ADJ10590233
Regular
Apr 29, 2019

MARTIN VASQUEZ vs. CR LAURENCE COMPANY, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Liberty Mutual's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's award to applicant Martin Vasquez. Defendant argued the judge improperly admitted medical reports not disclosed at the mandatory settlement conference. However, the Board found that a properly disclosed supplemental report effectively incorporated the unlisted permanent and stationary report, negating surprise or prejudice. Therefore, the Board concluded that admitting the incorporated report was consistent with substantial justice.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ Findings of FactAward and OrdersIndustrial InjuryLeft Knee InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical OpinionMandatory Settlement Conference
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acker v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning a defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the issue of special employment within the context of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court determined that the question of special employment is a factual matter to be resolved by the trier of fact. Consequently, the order denying summary judgment was unanimously affirmed. Additionally, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in allowing an amendment to the complaint, citing CPLR 3025 (b), as the defendant failed to demonstrate any surprise or prejudice resulting from the amendment.

Summary JudgmentSpecial EmploymentWorkers' Compensation LawAmendment of ComplaintFactual IssueAppellate ReviewCPLR 3025(b)Judicial DiscretionPrejudiceTrier of Fact
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 38 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