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. ADJ19432813; ADJ19432814
Regular
Mar 24, 2025

Yeni Saenz vs. Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC; Zurich American Dallas

Applicant Yeni Saenz sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) finding that her strike from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel was untimely, granting the defendant the right to select the QME. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, concluding that although the applicant's strike was indeed untimely, the defendant had subsequently waived its right to exclusively select a QME by failing to act within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and ordered the parties to proceed with Dr. Patrick S. Hill as the designated Qualified Medical Evaluator. Commissioner José H. Razo issued a dissenting opinion, arguing that the applicant had obfuscated the untimeliness of her strike and scheduled an appointment during the period when the defendant held the exclusive right to selection.

QME PanelUntimely StrikeLabor Code Section 4062.2WaiverTimely SelectionReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderWCJAppeals BoardPetition for Reconsideration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claims of Noss

Claimants, employees of Lawrence Aviation Industries, Inc. and union members, commenced a strike in 1984. During the strike, they received weekly strike benefits from their union and later unemployment insurance benefits. The employer challenged these benefits, arguing that strike benefits were contingent on performing union duties, making claimants not 'totally unemployed,' and alleged willful misrepresentation. Both the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found that the strike benefits were not conditional and no misrepresentation occurred. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that strike benefits not conditioned on services are not considered remuneration under 12 NYCRR 490.2 (b) and that the Board's factual findings, supported by substantial evidence, should not be disturbed.

Unemployment BenefitsStrike BenefitsTotal UnemploymentWillful MisrepresentationLabor UnionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceConditional PaymentsNew York Labor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 1977

Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 922

This case involves an appeal from a judgment that enjoined unions representing employees of the Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority (SIRTOA) from striking. SIRTOA, a public benefit corporation operating a commuter rail line in New York, argued that its employees, as public employees, are prohibited from striking under the New York State Taylor Law. The defendant unions contended they were governed by the federal Railway Labor Act, which permits strikes. The court affirmed the injunction, determining that SIRTOA's minimal connection to interstate commerce, primarily a single daily freight run, was outweighed by the State's compelling interest in preventing public employee strikes and ensuring essential commuter rail service for Staten Island residents.

Strike InjunctionPublic EmployeesRailway Labor ActTaylor LawInterstate CommerceState SovereigntyCommuter RailCollective BargainingNew York State LawFederal Preemption
References
7
Case No. ADJ8835727
Regular
Oct 05, 2015

ELVIRA MAYA vs. WENTE VINEYARDS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the timeliness of a defendant's strike of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The Appeals Board determined that the ten-day period to strike a QME from a panel, as per Labor Code section 4062.2(c), is extended by five days when service is by U.S. mail, consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a). Consequently, the defendant's strike of Dr. Boyd was deemed timely, and the applicant must now be examined by the remaining panel member, Dr. Gardner. The prior WCJ decision finding the strike untimely was rescinded.

WCABReconsiderationRemovalPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationPQMEPanel QMELabor Code section 4062.2(c)Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a)WCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Comair, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n (In Re Delta Air Lines, Inc.)

Comair, Inc., a debtor in bankruptcy, successfully sought a preliminary injunction against the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). Comair had obtained court approval to reject its collective bargaining agreement and planned to implement new employment terms. ALPA threatened a strike, arguing Comair's actions violated the Railway Labor Act's (RLA) status quo provisions. The court ruled that after lawful rejection of a collective bargaining agreement under the Bankruptcy Code, the RLA's status quo obligations do not apply. Therefore, Comair's implementation of new terms was permissible, and ALPA's proposed strike would violate its RLA duty to avoid interruptions to commerce. The motion for a preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining ALPA from engaging in a strike.

Bankruptcy LawLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementRailway Labor ActNorris-LaGuardia ActSection 1113Airline IndustryStrike InjunctionStatus Quo Doctrine
References
53
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05950
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2021

Dojce v. 1302 Realty Co., LLC

The plaintiff, Petrika Dojce, was injured by a power saw while working for an employer hired by 1302 Realty Company, LLC's tenant. Dojce sued 1302 Realty, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), including negligent supervision, retention, and hiring, and injuries such as psychosis. The Supreme Court of Kings County denied 1302 Realty's motion to strike negligent supervision claims, granted Dojce's cross-motion for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, and granted Dojce's motion to strike certain deposition testimony. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order by granting 1302 Realty's motion to strike the negligent supervision, retention, and hiring claims due to lack of evidence. The Appellate Division also denied Dojce's cross-motion for summary judgment as untimely, as it was filed months after the deadline and raised different issues. The Appellate Division affirmed the striking of Francesco Pedulla's deposition testimony as an appropriate remedy for improperly obtained evidence.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentNegligent SupervisionNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionDeposition TestimonyUntimely MotionIndustrial CodeWorkplace Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilkinson v. Bendix Friction Corp.

Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim after being diagnosed with a lung condition, which a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined in August 2003 was an occupational disease causally related to 1969 asbestos exposure while working for the employer, though not currently disabling. The claimant sought review. The Workers' Compensation Board, in January 2004, found the employer's rebuttals to be untimely. Subsequently, the employer and its third-party administrator filed an application for Board review in February 2004, which the Board denied as untimely in October 2004. The employer appealed this denial. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application as untimely, given that the employer had received proper notice of the WCLJ decision.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ApplicationBoard ReviewOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureCausal RelationDisability ClaimAppellate Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. ADJ7368095
Regular
Jun 10, 2016

MONICA FRANCO vs. TARN MEDICAL CORPORATION, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Monrovia Hospital's workers' compensation lien, which the WCJ initially denied for failure to meet the burden of proof and untimely filing. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, striking the WCJ's finding on untimely filing. While affirming the WCJ's decision on the merits of the lien amount, the Board found the issue of timeliness was not properly developed. Therefore, the WCJ's denial of further payment on the lien stands, but the specific finding of untimely filing is removed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderBurden of ProofTimeliness of LienLabor Code section 4903Substantial EvidenceReasonable ChargesMinutes of Hearing
References
1
Case No. ADJ9287010
Regular
Oct 22, 2015

Esther Rodriguez vs. MANUEL VILLA ENTERPRISE, NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, reversing a previous order that deemed her strike from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel untimely. The Board found that the applicant's strike was timely under Labor Code section 4062.2(c) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a), which extends the 10-day striking period by five days when the panel assignment is mailed. Consequently, Dr. James Shaw was designated as the proper QME, and the WCJ's prior order was rescinded.

Petition for RemovalQME paneluntimely strikesubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmLabor Code section 4062.2(c)Senate Bill 863Messele v. Pitco FoodsInc.Agreed Medical Evaluator
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,475 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