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

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. ADJ8904484
Regular
Mar 13, 2017

MIGUEL CERDA vs. LIVING OPPORTUNITIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a finding that their lien was barred by the statute of limitations under Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board determined that the 18-month filing deadline applied because the claimant's last date of service was after July 1, 2013, and the lien was filed approximately twenty months after that date. The Board rejected the claimant's argument that a three-year limit should apply due to continuous service before and after July 1, 2013, citing precedent establishing the last date of service as the relevant date for the statute of limitations. Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that the three-year period should apply to continuous service before and after the July 1, 2013 date to avoid requiring multiple lien filings.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)statute of limitationslien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardadministrative law judgetimely filingcontinuous serviceslast date of service
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Americredit Financial Services, Inc. v. Oxford Management Services

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (AmeriCredit) commenced an action to confirm an arbitration award against Oxford Management Services (OMS). OMS cross-moved to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrator exceeded his powers by dismissing a counterclaim and manifestly disregarded the law. The arbitrator had dismissed OMS's counterclaim for spoilation of evidence. The Court affirmed the arbitrator's decision, finding he did not exceed his authority under the RSA by dismissing the counterclaim or by interpreting the contract terms regarding account termination. The Court also found no manifest disregard for the law, concluding the arbitrator's decision was rationally supported by the record. Consequently, AmeriCredit's motion to confirm the award was granted, and OMS's motion to vacate was denied.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturFederal Arbitration ActManifest Disregard of LawArbitrator PowersSpoilation of EvidenceContract InterpretationCollection Agency DisputeSummary ProceedingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
41
Case No. 02-CV-6666L
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
83
Case No. ADJ8572033
Regular
Jan 23, 2017

NELLY MOLINA vs. MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By MACY'S

This case involves a lien claim by Industrial Healthcare for medical services provided to applicant Nelly Molina from November 6, 2012, to September 10, 2013. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of an order dismissing the lien, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the lien was untimely. The WCAB ruled that because the last date of service (September 10, 2013) was after July 1, 2013, the 18-month statute of limitations under Labor Code section 4903.5(a) applied, making the lien filed on September 2, 2015, tardy. A dissenting opinion argued that continuous services provided both before and after July 1, 2013, should be subject to the three-year statute of limitations, allowing for a single lien filing.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)statute of limitationslien claimreconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lienworkers' compensation administrative law judgeIndustrial HealthcareInnovative Medical ManagementMacy's Corporate Servicescontinuous treatment
References
7
Case No. ADJ226848 (AHM 0106960)
Regular
Oct 09, 2017

EDUARDO ESQUEDO vs. PREFERRED PERSONNEL SERVICE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Appeals Board reviewed the WCJ's decision to sanction a lien claimant for bad faith tactics. The claimant had inadvertently filed a lien for services on an incorrect date and continued to pursue reimbursement after notice of the error. While acknowledging the initial mistake might have been excusable, the Board upheld the finding of sanctionable conduct. However, the Board exercised its discretion to reduce the sanction amount from $\$ 1,500.00$ to $\$ 500.00$.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantSanctionsBad Faith TacticsFrivolous PetitionDelayInterpreting ServicesInadvertent FilingMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Case No. ADJ8730224
Regular
Dec 15, 2016

SERGIO BERMUDEZ vs. CERRITOS AUTO REPAIR CENTER, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Tri County Medical Group's (TCMG) petition for reconsideration of a finding that its lien claim was barred by the 18-month limitation in Labor Code section 4903.5(a). The Board majority held that because TCMG's last date of service was January 29, 2015, after the July 1, 2013 effective date for the shorter period, the 18-month limit applied. TCMG's lien was filed over 18 months after this last date of service and was therefore untimely. A dissenting commissioner argued that for continuously provided services crossing the July 1, 2013 date, the three-year limit should apply to avoid requiring multiple lien filings.

Labor Code Section 4903.5(a)lien claim18-month limitation periodthree-year limitation perioddate services were providedlast date of servicecontinuously provided servicespetition for reconsiderationdenial of lienWCJ report
References
19
Case No. ADJ18189986
Regular
Aug 15, 2025

ESMERALDA SANCHEZ vs. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC; CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Esmeralda Sanchez claimed industrial injury to multiple body parts while employed as a janitor for Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC. The WCJ initially found the lien claimant, Spectrum Medical Group, failed to prove injury AOE/COE, awarding only $1,000 for a specific service date and excluding Dr. Nia's medical-legal report due to non-compliance with Labor Code § 4628. Both the defendant (Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC, Constitution State Services, Zurich American Insurance Company) and the lien claimant petitioned for reconsideration, citing errors in the WCJ's findings regarding admissible evidence and the need for further record development. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted both petitions, deferring a final decision to allow for further review of the merits and the entire record in light of applicable statutory and decisional law.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantAOE/COELabor Code § 4628Medical Legal ReportSubstantial EvidenceAdmissibilityIndustrial InjurySpectrum Medical Group
References
21
Case No. ADJ8777170 ADJ8786553 ADJ8798896
Regular
Mar 30, 2017

JESUS MEZA BARRAZA vs. IL FORNAILO AMERICA, ZURICH

This case denied a petition for reconsideration regarding a lien claim deadline. The lien claimant argued that the 18-month filing deadline under Labor Code § 4903.5(a) should not apply to continuous services that straddled the July 1, 2013 amendment date. The Board found the reasoning in *Kindelberger* persuasive, holding that for continuous treatment, the last date of service triggers the statute of limitations. The Board also affirmed it lacks jurisdiction to rule on statutory constitutionality.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.5lien claimdate of serviceKindelberger v. City of Los Angelesstatute of limitationsongoing treatmentcontinuous treatmentongoing services
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 9,693 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