Home/Case Law/RICHARD AVILA vs. PIERCE ENTERPRISES, CALIFORNIA SELF INSURERS SECURITY FUND (ESTATE CONTRACTOR'S ACCESS PROGRAM/SIG, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR - METRO RISK MANAGEMENT)
Regular DecisionReconsideration

RICHARD AVILA vs. PIERCE ENTERPRISES, CALIFORNIA SELF INSURERS SECURITY FUND (ESTATE CONTRACTOR'S ACCESS PROGRAM/SIG, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR - METRO RISK MANAGEMENT)

Filed: Jun 28, 2012
Los Angeles
ADJ6580753

CompFox AI Summary

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from an interlocutory order, not a final decision determining substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Additionally, the petition violated WCAB rules regarding excess attachments. The Judge's report, which adopted the WCAB's reasoning, recommended denial based on the interlocutory nature of the order and the applicant's potential for future compliance.

RICHARD AVILA vs. PIERCE ENTERPRISES, CALIFORNIA SELF INSURERS SECURITY FUND (ESTATE CONTRACTOR'S ACCESS PROGRAM/SIG, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR - METRO RISK MANAGEMENT) is a workers' compensation case decided in Los Angeles. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.

It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Los Angeles.

Full Decision Text1 Pages

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from an interlocutory order, not a final decision determining substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Additionally, the petition violated WCAB rules regarding excess attachments. The Judge's report, which adopted the WCAB's reasoning, recommended denial based on the interlocutory nature of the order and the applicant's potential for future compliance.

Read the full decision

Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.

RICHARD AVILA vs. PIERCE ENTERPRISES, CALIFORNIA SELF INSURERS SECURITY FUND (ESTATE CONTRACTOR'S ACCESS PROGRAM/SIG, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR - METRO RISK MANAGEMENT) workers compensation case in Los Angeles. Legal case summary, ruling, and analysis for attorneys and legal research.

RICHARD AVILA vs. PIERCE ENTERPRISES, CALIFORNIA SELF INSURERS SECURITY FUND (ESTATE CONTRACTOR'S ACCESS PROGRAM/SIG, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR - METRO RISK MANAGEMENT) case law summary from Los Angeles. Workers compensation legal decision, case analysis, and court ruling details.

RICHARD AVILA vs. PIERCE ENTERPRISES, CALIFORNIA SELF INSURERS SECURITY FUND (ESTATE CONTRACTOR'S ACCESS PROGRAM/SIG, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR - METRO RISK MANAGEMENT) Case Analysis

RICHARD AVILA vs. PIERCE ENTERPRISES, CALIFORNIA SELF INSURERS SECURITY FUND (ESTATE CONTRACTOR'S ACCESS PROGRAM/SIG, THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR - METRO RISK MANAGEMENT) is a legal case related to workers' compensation in Los Angeles. This case explains important rulings, legal interpretations, and claim decisions.

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.