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. ADJ3797268 (MON 0304228)
Regular
Jun 30, 2016

HECTOR RENTERIA vs. BROWN, BUNYAN, MOON & MOORE, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves two lien claimants, Whittier Drugs and University Imaging Center, seeking reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision. The Board denied Whittier Drugs' petition, adopting the judge's reasoning. University Imaging Center's petition was dismissed as untimely, as it was filed beyond the 25-day statutory deadline. The Board emphasized that timeliness is jurisdictional and a petition must be *received* by the Board within the allowed period.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantTimelinessJurisdictionalFindings and Order and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeWCAB Rule 10508Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Whittier Drugs
References
0
Case No. ADJ7128393
Regular
Jun 10, 2010

TOMASA MARTINEZ vs. GUS JR.; FARMER'S INSURANCE COMPANY, Mid-Century Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal and dismissed a petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to change venue from Los Angeles to Riverside, claiming the initial filing was untimely. However, their petition lacked the required verification and statement under penalty of perjury regarding notice receipt, thus failing to establish timeliness under WCAB Rule 10410. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, noting that the defendant could still seek venue change later based on good cause for witness convenience.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADJ7128393PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONPETITION FOR REMOVALCHANGE OF VENUERIVERSIDE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYWCJLABOR CODE SECTION 5501.5WCAB RULE 10410
References
3
Case No. ADJ3745700 (OXN 0128625) ADJ6812951
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

PAUL HARBER vs. PGP INC, CNA INSURANCE COMPANY, VARGAS EXCAVATING INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Paul Harber's petition for reconsideration to address a potential issue with its timeliness. While the petition was signed on November 7, 2011, there's a discrepancy between EAMS filing dates (November 7 and November 8). The Board is issuing a notice of intention to dismiss unless Harber provides proof of timely filing on or before November 7, 2011. Failure to provide this proof will result in dismissal of the petition as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award and OrderWCJEAMSFiling DateTimelinessNotice of Intention to DismissBatch IDOliver v. Structural Services
References
3
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. ADJ14649906
Regular
Sep 08, 2025

JUAN CARLOS HERNANDEZ vs. YMCA OF THE FOOTHILLS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant Juan Carlos Hernandez's Petitions for Reconsideration and Removal. The Board aims to conduct a further review of the merits of the petitions and the entire record, citing concerns about the lack of evidence supporting the initial Findings and Orders by WCJ Bushin, which awarded a third-party credit of $147,625.51 to the defendants. The decision ensures due process and a comprehensive adjudication of factual and legal issues before a final ruling. The Board also noted the timeliness of its action in accordance with Labor Code section 5909(a) and admonished applicant's counsel for procedural violations.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalThird-Party CreditNet RecoveryDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code 5909EAMSWCJAppeals Board
References
26
Case No. ADJ4671941
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

GEORGE VIVEIROS vs. TURLOCK CITY TOW SERVICE, WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION, SOUTHLAND CLAIMS SERVICE, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed their Petition for Removal. The Board found that the defendant failed to timely object to the applicant's request for back surgery and that substantial medical evidence supported the need for the procedure. The defendant's arguments regarding the timeliness of their objection, burden of proof, and the sufficiency of medical evidence were rejected. Consequently, the original finding and award, granting the applicant entitlement to back surgery, remains upheld.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinding and AwardBack SurgeryUtilization ReviewLabor Code section 4610Burden of ProofDWC Rule 9792.6(o)Substantial Medical OpinionAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ8641731
Regular
Jan 17, 2017

CONCEPCION VASQUEZ vs. PROVIDENCE SAINT JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The defendant sought a replacement psychiatric QME panel, arguing the chosen QME, Dr. Pretsky, failed to respond to a request for a supplemental report within the 60-day timeframe. The Board found the WCJ's order was not a final decision, thus improper for reconsideration. Furthermore, they determined that removal was unwarranted as the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and a lengthy delay in objecting indicated a potential waiver of the timeliness issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardProvidence Saint Joseph Medical CenterSedgwick Claims Management ServicesConcepcion VasquezQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelpsychiatrysupplemental reportAdministrative Director Rule 38(i)Petition for Reconsideration
References
8
Case No. ADJ11024044
Regular
Sep 06, 2018

CRISTINA GODINEZ vs. BARCIACO FARMER INC., MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendants. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed the petition. The dismissal is based on the petition being untimely, as it was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision. California regulations require petitions for removal to be *received* by the WCAB within the prescribed time. Mailing the petition within the period is insufficient to establish timeliness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalUntimelyDismissedWCJ decisionMail serviceBusiness day extensionFiling deadlineProof of mailingWCAB
References
0
Case No. ADJ2251806 (RDG 0123225) ADJ1525361 (RDG 0090902)
Regular
Jul 29, 2015

STEVEN ZINN vs. CHICO NISSAN, INC., BROADSPIRE CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a second petition for reconsideration filed by the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA). CIGA's initial petition was dismissed as untimely by the Appeals Board. CIGA's current petition again challenges the timeliness of the prior petition and seeks to have the merits addressed. However, the Appeals Board dismissed this second petition as successive, citing precedent that a party cannot file another reconsideration petition after one has already been denied or dismissed. The proper avenue for challenging such a dismissal is a writ of review, which CIGA has also filed.

CIGAPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelySuccessive PetitionWrit of ReviewDismissalAppeals BoardWCJLabor CodeCode of Civil Procedure
References
1
Case No. ADJ15495436
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

Calvin Grigsby vs. Grigsby and Associates, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered two petitions from the applicant, Calvin Grigsby: a December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal, and a December 24, 2024 Petition for Removal. The Board dismissed the reconsideration aspect of the December 9th petition as it pertained to non-final orders and denied removal, finding no demonstration of irreparable harm. The subsequent December 24th petition was also dismissed as it challenged the same December 4, 2024 orders. The Board also noted the applicant's failure to comply with page limits for the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNonfinal OrdersLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental Pleadings
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 14,220 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