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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. ADJ10351910
Regular
Aug 09, 2017

SELENA MCINTOSH vs. MILITARY DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether a California Army National Guard member injured during "active duty for training" under federal Title 10 is eligible for California workers' compensation benefits. The Board found that California Military and Veterans Code Section 340(b) expressly prohibits state workers' compensation benefits for service performed under Title 10. Therefore, the applicant cannot collect benefits under Division 4 of the Labor Code. While the applicant's VA benefits were denied, her recourse was to appeal that denial, not to pursue state workers' compensation.

Military Departmentlegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundTitle 10Labor Code Division 4Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJpsyche injurysexual assault
References
16
Case No. ADJ8691809
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

NICOLE BORAGNO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY CHOWCHILLA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves Nicole Boragno's workers' compensation claim against the State of California, CDCR. The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying the admission of a supplemental medical report. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the supplemental report inadmissible. This was because discovery had closed at the mandatory settlement conference, and the defendant failed to establish good cause for introducing evidence not previously disclosed. The WCJ noted there was no change in circumstances to warrant the late-filed report, distinguishing it from precedent that allows such reports.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationmandatory settlement conferencediscovery closureLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)good causesupplemental reportPQMEapportionmenttimeliness
References
2
Case No. ADJ2077721
Regular
Jul 28, 2015

ANA PUEBLA vs. THREE D PLASTICS, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION AND FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendants in Ana Puebla's workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was untimely. California law allows twenty-five days to file a reconsideration petition after a final decision is served by mail, with limited extensions. The Board found this petition was filed well beyond that jurisdictional deadline. Consequently, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider its merits and ordered its dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely PetitionWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictional Time LimitDismissedAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
4
Case No. ADJ1237800 (AHM0151777)
Regular
Jan 22, 2016

KENNETH ROSENBERG vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL DISABILITY AND RETIREMENT, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify clerical errors in a previous award. The Board amended the award to reflect that the defendant, California Highway Patrol, is "legally uninsured" and affirmed the application of the "duty belt" presumption (Labor Code section 3213.2). The Board also affirmed the finding of $43\%$ permanent disability, temporary disability, and the denial of apportionment, finding that the defendant waived any due process claims regarding temporary disability by not objecting at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway PatrolLegally UninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermissibly Self-InsuredLow Back InjuryLeft Shoulder Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. ADJ10386082
Regular
Jun 21, 2017

TRINIDAD LEDESMA vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendants, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely. The WCAB clarified that a petition for reconsideration must be *received* by the Board within 25 days of service, not just mailed. As the petition was filed six days after the jurisdictional deadline, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictionalWCJAdministrative Law JudgeState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
4
Case No. ADJ9296500
Regular
Dec 30, 2016

CLVIRA REYNAGA vs. THE REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICK

In *Reynaga v. The Regents of University of California*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Elvira Reynaga's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed on November 4, 2016, which was over 25 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) October 7, 2016 decision. The WCAB clarified that the 25-day filing deadline, with potential extensions, is jurisdictional and requires actual receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing. As the petition was untimely received, the WCAB lacked authority to consider its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionalWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10392Labor Code 5900Labor Code 5903Administrative Law Judge
References
4
Case No. ADJ9362822
Regular
Jun 11, 2015

ENRIQUE GOMEZ vs. JONATHAN LOUIS INTERNATIONAL, INC.; CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by APPLIED RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Enrique Gomez's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within 25 days of service, with a potential extension for weekends or holidays. Crucially, the petition must be *received* by the WCAB within this timeframe, not merely mailed. The applicant's petition was filed on April 20, 2015, exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline after the March 17, 2015 decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictionalWCJApplied Risk ServicesJonathan Louis International
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 5,835 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