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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
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. 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
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. ADJ8382565
Regular
Nov 17, 2015

MOHAMED SHABAAN vs. FAIRWAY FORD, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Mohamed Shabaan's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within 25 days of service by mail, with potential extensions for weekends or holidays. Critically, the petition must be *received* by the Board within this timeframe, and proof of mailing is insufficient. Because Shabaan's petition was filed over 25 days after the WCJ's decision, it was untimely and dismissed as a jurisdictional matter.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor CodeCode of RegulationsJurisdictionalMaranianRymer
References
4
Case No. ADJ8541107
Regular
Sep 24, 2018

CHARLES PARAMORE III vs. MACY'S WEST STORES, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be received by the WCAB within 25 days of service by mail, with extensions for weekends or holidays, and timely receipt, not just mailing, is crucial. In this case, the petition was filed on July 23, 2018, well after the July 3, 2018 deadline. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition's merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictional Time LimitService by MailWCJ ReportFirst Amended Findings
References
4
Case No. ADJ2818792 (MON 0312453) ADJ832261 (MON 0341441) ADJ4192657 (MON 0327492) ADJ229486 (MON 0333529) ADJ309456 (MON 0334315) ADJ2984620 (MON 0312452)
Regular
Jun 14, 2015

KAY BRAND vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Kay Brand's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within 25 days of service by mail, with specific rules for extensions on weekends and holidays. Crucially, the petition must be *received* by the Board within this timeframe, not merely mailed. As Brand's petition was filed on June 19, 2015, more than 25 days after the May 21, 2015 decision, it was dismissed as untimely.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationuntimelydismissedjurisdictionalWCJservice by mailCalifornia Code of RegulationsLabor Codeadministrative law judge
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 991 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