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

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Bressler

Carbon Investment Partners LLC and Carbon Master Fund LP moved to extend deadlines to object to debtor Lee Alexander Bressler's discharge under sections 523(c) and 727 of the Bankruptcy Code. Carbon argued that the 60-day deadline should run from the date the creditors' meeting actually took place, not the first scheduled date, and claimed an oral agreement with Bressler's counsel for an extension. The court, citing unambiguous language in Bankruptcy Rules 4004 and 4007 and their 1999 amendments, ruled that the deadline is calculated from the *first date set* for the 341 Meeting, making Carbon's motion untimely. The court also rejected Carbon's equitable arguments, emphasizing that only the court can grant extensions and reliance on an unapproved oral agreement was unreasonable. While acknowledging Bressler's alleged misconduct, the court found the circumstances not 'extraordinary' enough for equitable tolling. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing for potential future objections under Bankruptcy Rule 4004(b)(2) if new facts emerge.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7Discharge ObjectionsBankruptcy RulesDeadline ExtensionEquitable TollingEquitable EstoppelCreditors' MeetingUntimely MotionFraudulent Conduct
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ficken v. Vocational Education & Extension Board of Suffolk

The petitioner sought review of her employment termination as a secretary by the Vocational Education and Extension Board of the County of Suffolk (VEEB) and requested reinstatement with back pay. She argued that she was discharged without the procedural protections afforded to civil servants under Civil Service Law § 75. VEEB contended that the petitioner was not covered by these protections. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing her reinstatement and back pay. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner's position, though designated 'unclassified' by Suffolk County, did not fit any category under Civil Service Law § 35, thus classifying it as 'classified' and entitling her to § 75 protections. The court emphasized that the petitioner could not be denied these rights until a proper classification was established.

Civil Service LawEmployment TerminationReinstatementBack PayUnclassified ServiceClassified ServiceCivil Servant RightsDue ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingSuffolk County
References
5
Case No. ADJ3162900 (LAO 0866179)
Regular
Aug 23, 2012

ROBERTO GOMEZ vs. GREIF BROTHERS CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns a lien claimant's request for reconsideration of a disallowed lien due to alleged due process violations regarding witness testimony. The Appeals Board initially ordered responses from attorney Hannan and hearing representative Surujnarain regarding these allegations. While Hannan received an extension, Surujnarain's late joinder to the extension request, citing a need for legal counsel due to his non-attorney status, was ultimately granted. Surujnarain now has until September 7, 2012, to file his verified response, with no further extensions to be granted absent a compelling showing of good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OrderLien ClaimantDue ProcessWitness TestimonySanctionsPetition for Extension of TimeVerified ResponsePenalty of Perjury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Christopher

The court considered a petition by the Broome County Social Services Department for an extension of placement for the child Elizabeth. Elizabeth was placed in foster care following the death of her half-brother, for which her mother, Sally, was convicted of criminally negligent homicide. Despite the Department's placement of Elizabeth with her mother during the proceedings, the court found Sally lacked credibility, insight, and responsibility for her actions. Expert testimony from two clinical psychologists highlighted the high risk to Elizabeth in her mother's care due to the mother's personality issues and lack of accountability. The court granted the extension of placement for 12 months but ordered Elizabeth's removal from her mother's home, directing the Department to place her in an appropriate alternative setting while both parents receive necessary services.

Child WelfareFamily Court ActExtension of PlacementChild AbuseCriminally Negligent HomicideParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildPsychological EvaluationCredibility AssessmentParental Responsibility
References
1
Case No. ADJ9271600
Regular
Oct 02, 2017

JESUS BARRERA vs. UMAMI RESTAURANT, LLC, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jesus Barrera's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The WCJ's decision was personally served, triggering a strict 20-day filing deadline for reconsideration, not subject to mail service extensions. Barrera's representative had until August 8, 2017, to file, but the petition was received on August 9, 2017. As the deadline is jurisdictional, the WCAB lacked authority to consider the untimely petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingPersonal Service20-Day LimitJurisdictionalWCABWCJLabor Code SectionsCalifornia Code of RegulationsOrder Dismissing Lien
References
4
Case No. ADJ2308352 (SBR 0341903) ADJ3554086 (SBR 0323156)
Regular
Nov 21, 2016

STEPHEN WEBBER vs. L. J. SNOW FORD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Stephen Webber's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. California law requires such petitions to be received by the WCAB within 25 days of the administrative law judge's decision, with extensions for weekends or holidays. In this case, the petition was filed on September 27, 2016, one day after the jurisdictional deadline of September 26, 2016. As the deadline is jurisdictional, the WCAB lacked authority to consider the untimely petition.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimely filingjurisdictional time limitWCABadministrative law judgeLabor CodeCalifornia Code of Regulationsproof of mailingproof of receiptSeptember 1
References
4
Case No. ADJ3186295
Regular
Dec 06, 2015

EMILIO LOPEZ vs. TEMPO INDUSTRIES, COMPWEST

This case involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The petition was deemed untimely because it was filed more than 20 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision was personally served. California Labor Code section 5903 sets a strict 20-day deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration, with no mailing extension applicable for personal service. The WCAB emphasized that this jurisdictional deadline cannot be extended, and therefore, the untimely petition was dismissed.

ReconsiderationUntimely petitionLabor Code section 5903Jurisdictional time limitPersonal serviceMailing extensionWCJ decisionAppeals BoardDismissalCalifornia Workers Compensation
References
7
Case No. ADJ2587645 (POM 0262067) ADJ983059 (POM 0262072)
Regular
May 03, 2017

ROSE EVANS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves petitions for reconsideration that were dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) as untimely. The WCJ's decision was personally served, triggering a strict 20-day filing deadline for reconsideration petitions, without mail service extensions. The petitions, filed on April 7, 2017, were four days past the April 3, 2017 deadline, rendering them jurisdictionally invalid. Therefore, the WCAB had no authority to consider the merits of the untimely filed petitions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessPersonal Service20-day limitLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictional time limitWCJ decisionDismissal
References
4
Case No. ADJ984305
Regular
Feb 20, 2015

JOANN MATUTE vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This en banc decision clarifies that the 30-day deadline to appeal an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination begins from the "mailing" date, which is legally equivalent to "service by mail." Consequently, the five-day extension provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a) for service by mail applies, making the effective deadline 35 days. The Appeals Board found the applicant's appeal timely filed on the 34th day and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits. This ruling ensures uniformity in calculating appeal periods for IMR decisions.

En BancIndependent Medical ReviewIMR DeterminationService by MailCode of Civil ProcedureLabor CodeAdministrative DirectorUtilization ReviewTimeliness of AppealReconsideration
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,088 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