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. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. LBO 0365278, LBO 0381401, LBO 0373147
Regular
Aug 12, 2008

JANIE LEWINGS vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted RS Medical's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding a previous Order of Dismissal. The WCJ acknowledged overlooking the applicant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, which rendered the dismissal improper as it was issued before proper objection time under CCP 1013. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

RS MedicalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalWCJmedical-legal costsCCP 1013Declaration of Readiness to Proceedrescindedreturned to trial level
References
Case No. ADJ984305
Significant
Sep 17, 2015

Joann Matute, Applicant vs. Los Angeles Unified School District, defendants

The Appeals Board held that the term 'mailing' in Labor Code section 4610.6(h) is equivalent to 'service by mail', thus extending the 30-day period to file an Independent Medical Review (IMR) appeal by five days under C.C.P. section 1013(a), making the applicant's appeal timely.

IMR determinationservice by mailCode of Civil Procedure 1013(a)Labor Code 4610.6(h)Appeals Board en bancPetition for ReconsiderationUtilization ReviewAdministrative Directoruntimely appeal30-day period
References
Case No. SFO 406432
Regular
Apr 09, 2008

VANCOIS D'AMOUN vs. PACIUFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The petition failed to meet the 20-day statutory deadline under Labor Code § 5903, plus the additional 5 days for mailing under Code of Civil Procedure §1013, and was not filed in the correct office. Consequently, the WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report and ordered the petition dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10840Lab. Code §5903Code of Civil Procedure §1013untimelydismissReport and Recommendationadministrative law judgeworkers' compensationapplicant
References
Case No. ADJ7103630
Regular
May 21, 2012

DENISE SANCHES vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves Denise Sanches' workers' compensation claim against the County of Sacramento. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sanches' Petition for Removal as untimely. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed on March 8, 2012, which was more than the allowed 25 days after the February 13, 2012, decision. This delay violated the time limits prescribed by 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 10843 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1013.

Petition for RemovalUntimelyDecision DateFiling Date25 Days20 Days8 Cal. Code Regs. 10843Code of Civil Procedure § 1013Served by MailDismissed
References
Case No. ADJ2732539 (LAO0871611)
Regular
Oct 28, 2008

CESAR MERIDA vs. M.C. GILL CORPORATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for removal because it was filed after the statutory deadline. The petition challenged a change of venue order, but defendant's counsel failed to file within the twenty-day period prescribed by WCAB Rule 10843(b), extended by five days for mail service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a). Consequently, the matter remains transferred to the San Bernardino district office.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueUntimely PetitionWCAB Rule 10843(b)Code of Civil Procedure 1013(a)Five-Day ExtensionService by MailDismissedReturned to Trial LevelSan Bernardino District Office
References
Case No. ADJ3682964 (ANA 0393581) ADJ2308886 (ANA 0399397)
Regular
Dec 12, 2008

KARLA ORNELAZ vs. ALBERTSON'S INC., Permissibly Selfinsured, Administered by SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the employer's offer of modified work was timely. The Board ruled that the 60-day period to offer work under Labor Code § 4658(d) begins when the employer is served with notice of the employee's permanent and stationary status. Furthermore, the Board held that the five-day mailing extension under Code of Civil Procedure § 1013 applies to this notice, thus entitling the employer to a 15% decrease in permanent disability indemnity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAlbertson's Inc.Specialty Risk ServicesInc.Karla OrnelazLabor Code §4658(d)(2)Labor Code §4658(d)(3)(A)permanent and stationarymodified workalternative work
References
Case No. ADJ8381652
Regular
Feb 07, 2014

CARLOS CABRERA RAZO vs. LAS POSAS COUNTRY CLUB, HARTFORD INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns the timeliness of an applicant's strike from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The Appeals Board vacated its previous grant of reconsideration, dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, and denied their Petition for Removal. The Board determined that Labor Code section 4062.2, as amended by SB 863 effective January 1, 2013, applies to pending matters, including this case with a 2012 date of injury. Applying the amended statute and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a), the applicant had 15 days from the Administrative Director's assignment of the QME panel to strike a name. The applicant's strike on the 12th day was therefore timely, affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 4062.2(c)Senate Bill 863Administrative DirectorCumulative Trauma InjuryQME Panel AssignmentCode of Civil Procedure 1013
References
Case No. ADJ984305
En Banc
Sep 17, 2015

JOANN MATUTE vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board held that the term 'mailing' in Labor Code section 4610.6(h) is equivalent to 'service by mail,' thus the 30-day period to file an appeal from an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination is extended by five days under C.C.P. section 1013(a), making the applicant's appeal timely.

IMR determinationservice by mailC.C.P. section 1013(a)Labor Code section 4610.6(h)Appeals Board en banctimeliness of appealutilization reviewAdministrative DirectorWCJPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ3140199 (RIV 0068905) ADJ966589 (RIV 0068906) ADJ3180444 (RIV 0068982)
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

JOSE L. JARA vs. IMPERIAL WESTERN PRODUCTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jose L. Jara's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition was untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Findings and Award was issued on October 18, 2013. This timeframe violates Labor Code section 5903 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 regarding timely reconsideration filings. Consequently, the WCAB has ordered the dismissal of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Administrative Law JudgeRecord ReviewOrder
References
Showing 1-10 of 173 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