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. ADJ9712319
Regular
Jun 20, 2025

ELEANOR DIAZ NEVAREZ vs. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SCHOOLS INSURANCE AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendant Elk Grove Unified School District. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the utilization review (UR) was untimely and procedurally defective, specifically regarding a Request for Authorization (RFA) for an H-Wave device. The defendant had argued the RFA was incomplete, but the Board found it procedurally complete, thus triggering UR obligations. The Board concluded that the defendant's failure to issue a timely conditional denial, as required by regulations, rendered the UR invalid and untimely. Additionally, the Board confirmed its decision was issued in compliance with the 60-day timeframe stipulated by Labor Code section 5909.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909TransmissionElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSReport and RecommendationUtilization ReviewURRequest for Authorization
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilkinson v. Bendix Friction Corp.

Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim after being diagnosed with a lung condition, which a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined in August 2003 was an occupational disease causally related to 1969 asbestos exposure while working for the employer, though not currently disabling. The claimant sought review. The Workers' Compensation Board, in January 2004, found the employer's rebuttals to be untimely. Subsequently, the employer and its third-party administrator filed an application for Board review in February 2004, which the Board denied as untimely in October 2004. The employer appealed this denial. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application as untimely, given that the employer had received proper notice of the WCLJ decision.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ApplicationBoard ReviewOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureCausal RelationDisability ClaimAppellate Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cullen v. BMW of North America, Inc.

This memorandum order addresses a plaintiff's failure to file a timely jury demand in a case removed from state to federal court. The plaintiff argued the removal was improper due to defendant's procedural errors, which they contended should extend the jury demand period or warrant a remand to state court. The court ruled that the defendant's procedural oversights in the state court filing did not affect the federal court's jurisdiction or extend the plaintiff's time for a jury demand. Citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38(b) and 39(b), the court denied the plaintiff's request to allow the untimely jury demand, stating that mere inadvertence is not sufficient for relief. However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint, while noting that asserting a new theory of recovery does not automatically grant a right to a jury trial for a previously waived issue.

Jury DemandRemoval of ActionFederal Civil ProcedureWaiver of Jury TrialAmended PleadingsJudicial DiscretionProcedural RulesTimelinessFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
20
Case No. 78107628
Regular Panel Decision

Stojanov v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board, filed July 10, 2008, which ruled that his applications for review were untimely. These claims stemmed from 1981 work-related accidents, reopened in 2008 with liability transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied compensation in May 2008, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 123. The Board found claimant's applications for review, mailed on the 30th day but received later, were untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, emphasizing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 requires filing within 30 days, not just mailing.

timelinessSpecial FundBoard reviewappealWCLJ decisionfiling deadlinemailed applicationamended decisionstatutory interpretationadministrative review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aldridge v. AC Rochester Products

The claimant, an employee of AC Rochester Products, experienced severe chest pain during employment in December 1987. After multiple medical examinations, her condition was diagnosed in January 1990 as chronic pain syndrome and costochondritis, related to the 1987 incident. She subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim in April 1990. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled the claim untimely, determining the injury was an accident and not an occupational disease. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the injuries resulted from an accident, making the claim untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28.

Workers' CompensationTimeliness of ClaimOccupational DiseaseAccidentChronic Pain SyndromeCostochondritisStatute of LimitationsMedical DiagnosisAppealEmployer Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2002

In re the Claim of Kearse

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which upheld its prior ruling that the claimant's request for a hearing was untimely. The claimant had been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to misconduct and charged with an overpayment, but failed to request a review hearing for several months, mistakenly believing her workers' compensation case was related. The Board, upon reconsideration, adhered to its finding that the request was untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that a claimant typically has 30 days to request a hearing unless there is a valid excuse. The court also declined to consider the claimant's belated assertions of post-traumatic stress disorder as a justification for the delay.

Unemployment BenefitsUntimely RequestMisconduct DischargeOverpaymentWorkers' CompensationPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAppellate ReviewHearing TimelinessAdministrative DecisionNew York Appellate Division
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almoravids v. Chase Manhattan Bank

The employer-respondent moved to dismiss an appeal as untimely. The Board had previously affirmed a referee's determination in June 1977, disallowing a claim. The appellant did not appeal this decision but sought reconsideration. In December 1977, the Board advised no further action was warranted. In January 1978, the appellant requested an appeal of both the June and December 1977 determinations. The appeal from the June 1977 decision was deemed untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 23, leading to the granting of the employer-respondent's motion to dismiss that appeal. The appellant's separate motion for an extension of time to prosecute the appeal was also denied without costs.

Appeal DismissalUntimely AppealWorkers' Compensation LawMotion GrantedMotion DeniedExtension of TimeBoard DecisionReconsideration Request
References
0
Case No. ADJ9859125
Regular
Aug 04, 2017

CHRISTOPHER E. RENFRO vs. YOUNGS COMMERCIAL TRANSFER, NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE

The Board dismissed the applicant's untimely Petition for Reconsideration of an order compelling blood testing. Removal was granted on the Board's own motion to address procedural issues concerning the WCJ's subsequent vacating orders. The Board affirmed the vacating orders, finding the original order non-final and the subsequent actions invalid due to procedural errors. The matter is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationGrant RemovalOrder VacatingBlood Panel TestingIndependent Medical EvaluatorPro PerTimelinessJurisdictionalFinal Order
References
13
Case No. ADJ6892572
Regular
Mar 05, 2012

RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ, RAFAEL CORREA-RODRIGUEZ vs. SURFACE CONSTRUCTORS, INC., FIRSTCOMP For ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration filed by Rafael Rodriguez (also known as Rafael Correa-Rodriguez). The dismissal was based on two procedural defects: the petition was untimely filed and improperly served. The WCAB further indicated that even if the petition had been procedurally sound, it would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingImproper ServiceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and RecommendationDismissalDenial on MeritsLien ClaimantSurface ConstructorsFirstcomp
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,178 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