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

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. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board initially proposed sanctions against attorney Michael Linn, Esq., mistakenly listing the service date for his objection period. Despite Mr. Linn filing objections on March 4th and April 6th/9th, which were not technically untimely based on the actual service dates, the Board granted him further opportunities to respond. Ultimately, the Board extended the deadline to May 20, 2009, for Mr. Linn to file any additional objections to the proposed $\$ 500.00$ monetary sanction, citing potential service discrepancies and aiming to avoid any appearance of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardmonetary sanctionsnotice of intentiondue processservice date discrepancyobjection to sanctionsadditional timeCalifornia Code of Regulationsfurlough directivesstate holidays
References
2
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. ADJ1115233 (LAO 0882004) ADJ2219668 (LAO 0882003) ADJ3777139 (LAO 0882002)
Regular
Feb 25, 2016

ANA LETICIA PEREZ vs. UNISERVE FACILITIES SERVICES CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing its lien with prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, affirming the dismissal. The lien claimant's lien was deemed untimely filed as it was filed over six years after the stipulated last date of service, violating the statutory filing deadline. The WCAB found no proof of a timely filing for the alleged 2009 lien, as only proof of service and receipt were presented, not proof of filing with the Board. Therefore, the lien was properly dismissed as it was not filed within the three-year statutory period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantOrder Dismissing with PrejudiceStipulationLast Date of ServiceNotice and Request for Allowance of LienElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Proof of ServiceStatute of Limitations
References
4
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. ADJ611717
Regular
Dec 04, 2014

Lynn Bolden vs. Service Master, California Insurance Guarantee Association, Sedgwick, Home Insurance Co.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claimant's lien. The Board found that Labor Code section 4904(a) was inapplicable and that the lien was not timely filed as required by WCAB Rule 10866. The lien claimant filed its lien after a compromise and release was already approved, and the lien itself was filed more than five years from the date of injury and over a year from the last date of service. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which detailed why the lien claimant's arguments and cited case law did not support their position, ultimately concluding the lien was properly dismissed as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationServicing AgentSedgwickHome Insurance CompanyLiquidationPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4904(a)WCAB Rule 10866Compromise and Release
References
3
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. ADJ8969504
Regular
Sep 12, 2016

GLADYS PAZ, vs. TECH FLEX; SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, TRI-COUNTY MEDICAL GROUP

This case concerns the timeliness of a lien claim filed by Tri-County Medical Group for services rendered to applicant Gladys Paz. The lien was filed on October 19, 2015, more than 18 months after the last date of service on December 23, 2013. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the lien is barred by the 18-month limitation period in Labor Code section 4903.5(a) for services provided on or after July 1, 2013. The Board found that the amended statute applied and lien claimant had a reasonable time to file within 18 months of their last service date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4903.5(a)Statute of LimitationsReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeContinuous ServicesEffective DateRetroactive Application
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Specialty Services, Inc.

Claimant, a construction foreman for Specialty Services, Inc., was injured while performing work for a church in Pennsylvania. Although Specialty filed a work-related accident report and its carrier began paying benefits, the carrier filed a notice of controversy over seven months after the Workers' Compensation Board indexed the case, exceeding the 25-day limit. The carrier argued that the late filing was due to surprise, mistake, and newly discovered evidence regarding the church's involvement, which claimant and Specialty allegedly failed to disclose. The Workers' Compensation Board refused to excuse the late filing, finding the carrier failed to demonstrate good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the carrier had ample time to investigate and that belatedly obtained evidence is not a sufficient ground to excuse a late filing.

Workers' CompensationLate Notice of ControversyTimely FilingEmployer-Employee RelationshipInsurance CarrierGood CausePleading BarAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Showing 1-10 of 15,091 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