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
Jun 11, 1990

In re the Claim of Hardon

Claimant's employment as a provisional case worker was terminated due to excessive lateness over 1.5 years. Despite the claimant attributing tardiness to unavoidable transportation delays, evidence showed inconsistencies and the ability to adjust his schedule. Warnings about job jeopardy due to chronic tardiness were also issued. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board resolved credibility questions against the claimant, finding substantial evidence to support disqualification from unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The decision was affirmed.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsMisconductExcessive LatenessChronic TardinessTransportation DelaysCredibility QuestionSubstantial EvidenceProvisional Case WorkerJob TerminationAppeal Board Decision
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00660 [168 AD3d 1339]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2019

Matter of LeSane (Commissioner of Labor)

Robert M. LeSane, a maintenance worker, was terminated from his employment due to chronic tardiness, despite receiving multiple warnings, including a final written warning. He subsequently filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits, which was denied on the grounds of misconduct. This decision was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and, later, by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. LeSane appealed the Board's decision, but the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the ruling, concluding that continued tardiness after prior warnings constitutes disqualifying misconduct and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

unemployment insurance benefitsmisconducttardinessprior warningssubstantial evidenceAppellate Divisionjudicial reviewemployer policytermination of employmentadministrative law
References
6
Case No. ADJ8462686, ADJ8462674, ADJ8462669, ADJ8458516, ADJ8454515
Regular
May 06, 2016

BENIGIA SANTANA vs. TRI-S ENTERPRISES, INC., WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinded a WCJ's order dismissing a lien claim, and remanded the matter for a hearing on the merits of the lien. The WCAB also reduced sanctions imposed on the lien claimant's representative from \$500 to \$100, citing the policy to favor hearings on the merits. While the representative's tardiness and conduct were not condoned, dismissal was deemed too severe a penalty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationWCJOrder Dismissing LienCompromise and ReleaseSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Hearing representativeTardiness
References
1
Case No. ADJ5834082
Regular
Mar 22, 2010

Patricia Guillen vs. Redwood Empire Dermatology, Preferred Employers of San Diego

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the original decision, finding the applicant failed to prove discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The Board determined the employer made the decision to terminate the applicant for absenteeism and tardiness *before* learning of her industrial injury. Therefore, the applicant did not prove her termination was "because of" her injury as required by law. The applicant's claim for discrimination benefits was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationterminationindustrial injuryprima facie casebusiness realitiesapplicant testimonyemployer testimonycredibility
References
0
Case No. ADJ8013755
Regular
Mar 29, 2017

JOONG YEOL LEE vs. BCD TOFU HOUSE; TOWER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The defendant had 25 days from service of the Findings and Award to file, with mail service extending the deadline. However, the petition was received by the Board one day *after* the filing deadline. Filing proof of mailing within the period is insufficient; the petition must be received by the Board. Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition due to its tardiness.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJFindings and AwardLab. CodeCal. Code Regs.JurisdictionalDate of Filing
References
4
Case No. ADJ7180817
Regular
Feb 02, 2018

VICTOR SALGUERO vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The petition was deemed filed on December 12, 2017, which was one day after the jurisdictional deadline of December 11, 2017. This tardiness resulted from the petition being electronically filed after 5:00 PM on the final day for filing. The Board also admonished the defendant's litigation manager for submitting unverified evidence and making unsubstantiated factual assertions.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessDismissalElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSAppeals Board RuleWCJSupplemental PleadingJurisdictionalFindings of Fact
References
5
Case No. ADJ408254 (STK 0196694)
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

CLIFFORD E. SILVA (deceased) LINDA SILVA (widow) vs. DAVINDER JAGPAL, DBA D-BEST EXPRESS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

This case clarifies that the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEF) is shielded from penalties and sanctions under Labor Code section 5813, even for delayed payment of attorney fees, due to the specific limitations of liability in Labor Code section 3716.2. The Court of Appeal reversed a prior decision that would have allowed sanctions against the UEF for its tardiness in paying an applicant's attorney fee. Therefore, the UEF is not liable for the requested sanction in this matter.

RemittiturUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 3716.2Attorney's FeesDeath BenefitStipulations with Request for AwardCourt of Appeal OpinionWillful or Bad Faith Actions
References
1
Case No. ADJ7554153
Regular
Mar 01, 2014

GABRIELA ADAME vs. AREOL STAFFING SERVICES, INC., ULLICO CASUALTY CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the lien claimants' petition. The petition was untimely filed, as it was submitted significantly after the deadline for seeking reconsideration of the orders dismissing the liens. Furthermore, the lien claimants' arguments regarding lack of notice were refuted by proof of service, and they failed to properly update their representative information. The Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition due to its tardiness and other procedural defects.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimLien Activation FeePetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionService of ProcessRepresentative DesignationLabor Code Section 4903.06
References
2
Case No. ADJ4016078 (VNO 0461399)
Regular
Oct 10, 2014

David Snow vs. South Coast Sheet Metal, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant's petition for reconsideration of a stipulated workers' compensation award was dismissed as untimely, filed 33 days after the award was served. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration on its own motion within the 60-day statutory period. The Board rescinded the original award and returned the case to the judge for further proceedings. This action bypasses the applicant's tardy petition while allowing the Board to review the case based on the applicant's claims of pressure and lack of prior medical evaluation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated AwardIndustrial InjuryRight Lower ExtremityReflex Sympathetic DystrophyHerniaTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityUntimely Petition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Laing

Claimant, a warehouse worker for a food distribution company, was terminated from his employment after reporting to work late. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his claim for unemployment insurance benefits, ruling that his termination was due to misconduct. The claimant appealed, arguing that his tardiness was due to overslept and that the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence. The court disagreed, noting the claimant's admission of lateness and prior warnings, concluding that such behavior constitutes misconduct and upholding the Board's decision.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductTardinessWarehouse WorkerBenefits DisqualificationAppeal Board DecisionJudicial ReviewEmployment TerminationPrior WarningsSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 33 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