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. ADJ723750 (LAO 0809604)
Regular
Oct 17, 2008

SHEMEL BABAKHANI vs. ELINA NAZARIAN dba JAY AUTO REPAIR; WILLFULLY UNINSURED

This case involves an applicant's appeal regarding permanent disability and a typographical error, alongside the Uninsured Employers Benefits Fund's (UEF) appeal challenging the admission of an expert's report and the disability rating. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's reconsideration to correct a clerical error in the permanent and stationary date, otherwise affirming the original decision. The UEF's petition for reconsideration was denied, with the Board adopting the WCJ's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fundindustrial injuryright eye injurypsyche injuryauto mechanictemporary disability benefitspermanent disability ratingpermanent and stationary daterating expert
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07023 [154 AD3d 1037]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2017

Matter of Passero v. Uninsured Employers' Fund

The claimant, Edmund Passero, a bricklayer, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2011 for an occupational disease resulting from repetitive stress. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially established the claim against DeSpirit Mosaic & Marble Co. and later apportioned liability among three employers, including J. William Pustelak Inc., found to be uninsured. The Uninsured Employers' Fund (UEF) sought administrative review, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the appeal as untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's finding on the timeliness of UEF's application, holding that UEF would not have incurred an obligation until the WCLJ's December 2014 decision which apportioned liability. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board to consider the merits of UEF's appeal.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseUntimely AppealAdministrative ReviewLiability ApportionmentUninsured EmployerDate of DisablementThird DepartmentAppellate DivisionClaimant Benefits
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03429 [205 AD3d 1291]
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

Matter of Fuller v. Jackson

The claimant, Howard Alphonso Fuller, sustained work-related injuries in 2006, leading to an established workers' compensation claim. The Uninsured Employers' Fund (UEF), acting as the carrier, consented in 2013 to the settlement of the claimant's third-party action, conditioned on receiving $94,927 for its lien and a copy of the judicial closing statement. Despite repeated requests by the UEF to claimant's third-party counsel between 2015 and 2018, these documents were not provided. In 2020, UEF sought suspension of benefits, which the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board granted, rejecting the claimant's argument that the doctrine of laches barred the suspension. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the UEF's delay in bringing the issue before the Board was not unreasonable and that the claimant failed to demonstrate actual prejudice.

laches doctrineworkers' compensation benefitsthird-party action settlementlien satisfactionbenefit suspensionjudicial closing statementprejudice requirementunreasonable delayUninsured Employers' FundAppellate Division decision
References
7
Case No. STK 0196694
Regular
Jul 20, 2007

CLIFFORD E. SILVA (Deceased) LINDA SILVA (Widow) vs. DAVINDER JAGPAL, DBA D-BEST EXPRESS, INSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a $\$ 100$ sanction imposed on the Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF) for bad faith in delaying attorney fees. While the Board affirmed that UEF can be sanctioned under Labor Code section 5813, it rescinded the original order. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if UEF's delay was willful or due to excusable neglect, as required for sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers FundLabor Code section 5813Labor Code section 5814Bad Faith ActionsSanctionAttorney's FeesWillful DelayReconsiderationFinding and Order
References
3
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. ADJ338022 (VNO 0469583)
Regular
Feb 05, 2009

FERMIN ANTONIO AMAYA vs. JOAQUIN VARGAS FLORES, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND, JOANNE L. CORDOVA, FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration for the Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF) to clarify findings regarding the applicant's employment status and the UEF's involvement. The WCJ's prior decision rescinded a supposed dismissal of UEF and found the applicant was not an employee of the homeowner, but the record lacked clarity on these points. The Board found the WCJ's decision lacked sufficient factual basis and legal reasoning required by statute. Therefore, the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Uninsured Employers FundReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardJurisdictionCompromise and ReleaseDismissalHomeownerEmployeeLabor Code 3352(h)Lien Claimants
References
2
Case No. ADJ3045197 (LAO 0818234)
Regular
Oct 07, 2011

DIOMEDES QUINONEZ vs. CHECKMATE STAFFING, INC., BUCKEYE CLAIMS, J.C. PENNEY, INC., AIG CLAIM SERVICES, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEF) sought reconsideration of a prior award against Checkmate Staffing, arguing an automatic bankruptcy stay invalidated it. The Board denied the UEF's petition, finding it lacked jurisdiction to rescind an award over seven years old. California Labor Code Section 5804 strictly limits rescission or alteration of awards to five years post-injury. The Board emphasized that rescinding the award would contravene the legislative intent behind the UEF to protect workers injured by illegally uninsured employers.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardBankruptcy Automatic StayLabor Code Section 5804Jurisdictional LimitationRescind AwardContinuing JurisdictionLegally Uninsured EmployerDate of Injury
References
7
Case No. 533788
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Howard Alphonso Fuller

Claimant Howard Alphonso Fuller sustained work-related injuries in 2006, and his workers' compensation claim was established. He also initiated a third-party action, which the Uninsured Employers' Fund (UEF) consented to settle in 2013, contingent on receiving a judicial closing statement and payment of its $94,927 lien. Despite repeated requests from UEF between 2015 and 2018 for these documents, they were not provided. In 2020, UEF sought suspension of claimant's benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) suspended benefits, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found the doctrine of laches inapplicable. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's refusal to apply laches and the suspension of benefits pending proof of lien satisfaction.

Workers' CompensationLienThird-Party ActionLachesUninsured Employers FundSuspension of BenefitsJudicial Closing StatementPrejudiceAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Nanterne v. Ahdoot

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in 2002. As the employers, Shahla Ahdoot and Mitchel Ahdoot, were uninsured, the Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF) paid benefits and sought reimbursement. In 2012, claimant and UEF reached a settlement agreement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 for $45,000, releasing UEF and the uninsured employers from liability. The Workers’ Compensation Board approved this agreement. The uninsured employers later sought to rescind the agreement, arguing lack of consent, but the Board denied their request, stating their consent was not required. The uninsured employers appealed this denial. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board’s decision, citing its lack of authority to review a waiver agreement once approved by the Board, and noted that the employers had not appealed an earlier determination regarding Mitchel Ahdoot's employer status.

Workers' Compensation LawSettlement AgreementUninsured Employers FundRescission of AgreementAppellate ReviewBoard ApprovalEmployer ConsentWaiver AgreementLiability ReleaseWork-Related Injury
References
4
Case No. LAO 0722567
En Banc
Mar 10, 2004

Daniel Milbauer vs. Erez Boostan dba American Runner Attorney Service, Uninsured Employers Fund

The Appeals Board dismisses the Uninsured Employers Fund's (UEF) petition for reconsideration because UEF is not legally aggrieved by the decision, the challenged procedural aspects are not final orders, and the petition is successive.

Uninsured Employers FundPetition for ReconsiderationEn BancAggrieved PartyFinal OrderSuccessive PetitionWrit of ReviewAdministrative Procedures ActLabor CodeDue Process
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 30 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