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

Claim of Estate of Seitz v. Jacobson & Co.

This appeal concerns the timeliness of a supplemental application for review in a workers' compensation death benefits claim. John Seitz, a sheet metal worker, died from asbestosis-related lung cancer. His surviving spouse filed for benefits but died before causality was established, leading a WCLJ to close the case. The decedent's estate sought to reopen the case, and although a WCLJ initially ruled the claim abated upon the spouse's death, the estate filed for Board review. After being granted an extension by the Board's Office of Appeals, the estate filed a supplemental application arguing for benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (4-b). However, a Board panel subsequently deemed this application untimely and denied the claim. The Appellate Court reversed, finding the Board abused its discretion by rejecting the application as untimely after granting an extension, and also noted the Board's unexplained departure from prior precedents. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Death Benefits ClaimSupplemental Application ReviewTimeliness of FilingAbatement of Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Law Section 16 (4-b)Appellate Division ReviewAbuse of DiscretionBoard PrecedentRemand for Further ProceedingsAsbestosis-related Cancer
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Farrell Lines, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which had dismissed a longshoreman's personal injury action against a vessel owner as time-barred. The original dismissal was based on New York's three-year statute of limitations (CPLR 214, subd 5) and the precedent of McCoy v American Israeli Shipping Co. The Appellate Division unanimously reversed this decision, holding that the timeliness of such actions must be determined under Federal maritime law. The court emphasized that under Federal law, laches is the sole standard for untimeliness, not a fixed statute of limitations. This ruling ensures a uniform application of negligence remedies for longshoremen, determining that the prior McCoy precedent no longer represents the law in New York.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPersonal InjuryStatute of LimitationsFederal Maritime LawLachesVessel Owner NegligenceAppellate ReviewCPLR 214Precedent OverruledUniform Federal Rule
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2000

Claim of Velasquez v. Tony's Taxi, Inc.

The case is an appeal brought by Tony's Taxi, Inc. against a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had deemed Tony's Taxi's applications for review and rehearing of a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's (WCLJ) rulings as untimely. The WCLJ initially established an employer/employee relationship between Tony's Taxi and the claimant, and subsequently penalized Tony's Taxi for being uninsured. Tony's Taxi contended that the lack of the claimant's tax returns negated the employment proof and that the Board erred in its timeliness determination. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in denying the rehearing application due to a lack of new evidence and upholding the dismissal of the review application as untimely.

timelinessemployer-employee relationshipuninsured employerpenalty assessmentrehearing applicationappellate reviewadministrative lawprocedural errorevidence admissibilitytax return requirement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nomura Securities International, Inc. v. CIBC World Markets Corp.

Nomura Securities International, Inc. (NSI) sought a permanent stay of arbitration against CIBC World Markets Corporation. The central issue was whether the court or an arbitrator should determine the timeliness of CIBC's arbitration claim, which arose from the 1998 sale of Mexican bonds without associated value recovery rights (VRRs). NSI argued the claim was time-barred under New York's statute of limitations, citing common-law choice-of-law principles. CIBC contended federal law (FAA) applied, placing timeliness decisions with the arbitrator. The court, referencing recent New York Court of Appeals decisions, determined that without an explicit choice-of-law provision in the arbitration agreement stating New York law governs the *enforcement* of the agreement, the arbitrator is the proper authority to decide timeliness. Consequently, NSI's motion for a permanent stay of arbitration was denied.

Arbitration StayStatute of LimitationsFederal Arbitration ActChoice of LawArbitrabilityProcedural ArbitrabilitySubstantive ArbitrabilityNYSE ArbitrationContract DisputeSecurities Transactions
References
12
Case No. ADJ9241658, ADJ9546688
Regular
Dec 13, 2016

LORI VEIGA BLUM vs. CALIFORNIA SKIN INSTITUTE, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The applicant sought a hearing regarding the timeliness of the defendant's utilization review (UR) determination. The WCJ improperly took the matter off calendar without a hearing, denying the applicant's due process rights. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the WCJ's order was not a final decision and that the applicant was entitled to a hearing on the UR timeliness issue. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Utilisation ReviewDeclaration of ReadinessOrder Taking Off CalendarPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
13
Case No. ADJ7904327, ADJ7850534
Regular
Apr 17, 2017

JEFFREY MCKENNY vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision. The WCJ improperly deferred jurisdiction over the applicant's requested treatment, which was related to a disputed psychiatric injury, and failed to make a finding on the timeliness of utilization review. The WCAB found that the timeliness and reasonableness of the requested treatment are not ripe for adjudication until the compensability of the psychiatric injury is determined. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeWCJIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineLinemanSecondary Treating PhysicianMarcia Lamm Ph.D.
References
1
Case No. ADJ3666036
Regular
Apr 11, 2012

KATHLENE WEBER vs. LAW OFFICES OF LORE HILBURG, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision finding cumulative trauma to the applicant's neck, shoulders, wrists, hands, and psyche, but not hypertension. The Board initially questioned the timeliness of the applicant's petition for reconsideration. However, accepting the applicant's attorney's verified representation of not being served with the original award, the Board deemed the petition timely. Despite accepting timeliness, the Board affirmed the original WCJ's findings on the merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning.

WCABReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardCumulative TraumaHypertensionLegal SecretaryTemporary Disability IndemnityPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessNotice of Intention
References
2
Case No. ADJ2051919
Regular
Apr 25, 2016

DENNIS POWELL vs. VIETNAM INVESMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address disputes over the timeliness of utilization review decisions for applicant Powell's medical treatment. The WCJ had found certain UR decisions untimely, awarding treatment, but the defendant argued they were timely. The Board found the WCJ's initial decision was potentially based on improperly excluded evidence and that the timeliness of UR decisions should be assessed for the entire request for authorization, not individual treatment components. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewTimelinessFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeMedical TreatmentGastric Bypass SurgeryFunctional RestorationDetox Program
References
4
Case No. ADJ4629373 (VNO 0532737) ADJ4177729 (VNO 0532739)
Regular
Mar 27, 2012

MIGUEL DELGADO vs. IFCO SYSTEMS NROTH AMERICA, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior order to dismiss the petition as untimely. The attorney's arguments regarding Fifth Amendment protections, inappropriateness of sanctions, and inconsistencies in defense counsel's testimony were rejected. Sanctions were imposed due to the attorney making false statements about the timeliness of his petition, not for delaying the case or for self-incrimination. The Board found the attorney's failure to appear at a hearing and subsequent new evidence did not warrant re-litigation of the timeliness issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsAttorney's FeesTimelinessFindings and AwardDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedEx Parte CommunicationMisinformationLabor Code Section 5813
References
0
Case No. ADJ4133886 (AHM 0150741)
Regular
Jan 18, 2011

HUGO ABADIA vs. QUICKSILVER, INC., ACE USA

This case involves a dispute over an applicant's entitlement to spinal surgery following an admitted industrial injury. The defendant seeks reconsideration of a decision awarding surgery, arguing the utilization review denial was timely and the applicant waived timeliness objections by agreeing to an Agreed Medical Examiner (AME) process. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant waived their right to object to the timeliness of the utilization review by participating in the AME process. Consequently, the Board rescinded the award and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the medical necessity of the surgery, including the AME's reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewAgreed Medical ExaminerReconsiderationExpedited HearingFindings and AwardSpinal SurgeryLow Back InjuryWaiverTimeliness
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 282 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