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. 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. ADJ784749 (AHM 0115079)
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

Carlos Bautista vs. Prime Factors, Inc., Factory Filament, Inc., Isaac Powell, Uninsured Employers Fund

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Carlos Bautista for an industrial injury to his spine sustained in November 2003. The applicant was hired in California by Prime Factors Inc., an illegally uninsured employer, and then flown to Mississippi for a job. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is denying Isaac Powell's petition for reconsideration of prior findings. These findings established California's jurisdiction, the employer's uninsured status, and the applicant's industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPrime FactorsInc.Isaac PowellUninsured Employers FundIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineThoracic SpineLumbar SpineLabor Code Section 5900
References
0
Case No. ADJ10531850
Regular
Aug 14, 2018

JORGE MACIEL IBARRA vs. TIM CAGLE, individually, doing business as TIM CAGLE DRYWALL, GREGORY AND BROOKE BAIRD, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND (UEBTF), ALLIED SACRAMENTO

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Jorge Maciel Ibarra's claim for an industrial injury as a drywall installer. The primary issue is whether applicant was a household employee, as the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) argues for exclusion. The Board rescinded the initial findings and remanded the case for the WCJ to first determine the identity of the employer and insurance status. If Tim Cagle Drywall is uninsured, the WCJ must then decide if the applicant, as an employee of an unlicensed contractor, meets the household employee wage and hour thresholds for coverage.

UEBTFPetition for ReconsiderationHousehold EmployeeLabor Code section 3352(h)Ultimate HirerUninsured ContractorLicensed ContractorSection 2750.5(c)Section 3351(d)Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
5
Case No. ADJ13090134
Regular
Aug 14, 2025

OLIVIA RAMIREZ vs. ISIDRO A. MEJIA, ZINDER JANITORIAL CO., UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, BOURBON PUB/PARADIES LAGARDERE, SENTRY INSURANCE

Applicant Olivia Ramirez sustained an injury to her knee and ankle on November 17, 2019, while employed by Isidro A. Mejia and Zinder Janitorial Co., who were uninsured for workers' compensation. The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) successfully joined Paradies Lagardere as a co-defendant, alleging joint employer status. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) initially found Paradies to be a joint employer in Findings of Fact issued on May 15, 2025. Paradies sought reconsideration, disputing the joint employer finding and the injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the UEBTF's answer, and the WCJ's report, ultimately granting reconsideration but deferring a final decision on the merits, indicating further review of the record and applicable law is necessary. The decision also clarified that Labor Code sections 2775 and 2776, related to employee classification, do not apply retroactively to the date of injury in this case.

Joint employerUninsured employersParadies LagardereZinder JanitorialIsidro MejiaWCJPetition for ReconsiderationAOE/COELabor Code section 5909EAMS
References
17
Case No. LAO 0784069
Regular
Feb 11, 2008

RICARDO LOPEZ vs. HYON SEOP KIM, Individually and dba H.B. CONSTRUCTION, AARON SONG, an Individual, Illegally Uninsured, THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, As Administrator of THE UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) was not liable for a penalty on an attorney's fee award due to unreasonable delay. However, Labor Code section 3716.2 obligates the UEBTF to seek such penalties in civil enforcement actions against uninsured employers. Therefore, the Appeals Board amended the award to clarify that while UEBTF is not directly liable for the penalty, it remains part of the underlying award that UEBTF must pursue from the uninsured employers.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundUEBTFAttorney's fee awardLabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 3716.2Civil suitReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJPenalty
References
1
Case No. ADJ2283092 (SAC 0351262)
Regular
Mar 20, 2009

Bernard Bonavita vs. Tahoe Vista LLC, Uninsured Employers Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found that the applicant's petition, which complained about the Uninsured Employers Fund's (UEF) handling of his claim and lack of benefit payments, was not subject to reconsideration. This was because no final order, decision, or award had been issued in the case. The WCAB remanded the matter to the trial level for a status conference to advance the claim toward resolution.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers FundPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderLabor Code section 5900Discretionary PaymentsWCJStatus ConferenceSubstantive RightsLiability
References
3
Case No. ADJ4646082 (OAK 0341803)
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

WILLIAM MATEO vs. B&C TRANSIT CONSULTANTS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to increase the applicant's award by 10% under Labor Code section 4554 due to the employer's willful failure to secure workers' compensation insurance. The Board found that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving its uninsured status was not willful, despite stipulations of uninsured status. The applicant's attorney's fees were also increased to include 15% of the penalty award.

Labor Code section 4554Willful failure to secure compensationPrima facie evidence of willfulnessIncreased compensationUninsured employers fundPetition for reconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardDecision after reconsiderationTemporary disability indemnityPermanent disability indemnity
References
0
Case No. ADJ2183699 (VNO 0558048)
Regular
Oct 23, 2019

ALICIA RAMOS vs. DAVID HAKIM, The Handal Family Trust

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior determination that David Hakim was an illegally uninsured employer. Hakim appealed, arguing the applicant was an independent contractor, not an employee, thus he was not required to carry workers' compensation insurance. The Board found that Hakim's contention regarding the employment status sufficiently rebutted the prima facie case required for an illegally uninsured employer finding. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine employment status and other related issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPrima Facie DeterminationIllegally Uninsured EmployerPetition for ReconsiderationIndependent ContractorLabor Code Section 3715Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundArising Out Of and Occurring In The Course Of EmploymentAOE/COEDirector of Industrial Relations
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Shutter v. Philips Display Components Co.

The claimant, injured in a work-related single-car accident, received workers' compensation benefits and also pursued an uninsured motorist claim, recovering $124,697.95. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the employer's insurance carrier was entitled to offset this recovery against future compensation benefits, overturning a prior WCLJ decision. The claimant appealed, arguing that Workers' Compensation Law § 29's offset provisions apply only to third-party tortfeasor actions, not uninsured motorist proceeds. The court rejected this argument, finding the statute's general terminology encompasses uninsured motorist benefits and that legislative intent for exclusion only exists for no-fault benefits, not uninsured motorist benefits under Insurance Law § 3420 (f). Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed.

Uninsured motoristWorkers' Compensation LawOffsetInsurance carrierThird-party tortfeasorLien provisionsStatutory interpretationLegislative intentNo-fault insuranceCompensation benefits
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,610 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