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. ADJ10391495
Regular
Jun 20, 2019

EDNA DE LEON, vs. DEPALMA TERRACE SENIOR LIVING; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES; THE HARTFORD,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Edna De Leon's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The Board noted that California law allows only 25 days to file a petition after a decision is served by mail. De Leon's petition was filed on April 22, 2019, which was more than 25 days after the WCJ's March 25, 2019 decision. The Board emphasized that timely filing is jurisdictional and they lacked authority to consider petitions filed outside this timeframe.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimelydismissaljurisdictionalservice by mailtime limitWCABWCJdeadline25 days
References
Case No. ADJ11166250
Regular
Aug 18, 2025

Diane Clay vs. County of Los Angeles, Tristar

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Diane Clay against County of Los Angeles and Tristar. The Board reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report. The primary issue was the timeliness of the petition. According to Labor Code section 5909, the Appeals Board must act on a petition within 60 days of transmission, and a petition must be filed within 25 days of a final decision. The Board found that the petition, filed on June 11, 2025, was more than 25 days after the Findings of Fact and Order issued on May 14, 2025, making it untimely. As untimeliness is a jurisdictional issue, the Board lacked authority to consider it on merits. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationuntimelydismissalLabor Code section 5909Appeals Board60-day periodtransmissionEAMSservice of report25-day limit
References
Case No. ADJ8964113
Regular
Jun 24, 2016

LISA LIU vs. ADVENTURER HOTEL, TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claim filed by Tri-County Medical Group for services provided to applicant Lisa Liu. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the lien, finding it was filed untimely beyond the 18-month statutory limit. The lien claimant appealed, arguing the filing date of February 2, 2015, was within the period because the 18-month deadline of February 1, 2015, fell on a Sunday, extending the filing to the next business day. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the ALJ's order, and found the lien timely filed. The Board determined that per procedural rules, when the last day falls on a weekend, the deadline extends to the next business day.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.5(b)Statute of Limitations18-month periodRules of Practice and ProcedureBusiness DayEAMS RecordJudicial Notice
References
Case No. ADJ4696795 (SJO 0266117)
Regular
Aug 10, 2012

RUDOLPH GARCIA vs. PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal and rescinded a WCJ's order for a replacement QME panel. The WCAB found that the applicant's attorney erred in sending a request for a supplemental report to an incorrect address for the QME, despite the QME's report listing two addresses. Consequently, the QME did not receive the request and did not issue a supplemental report within 60 days. The WCAB determined that allowing a new panel would cause prejudice and unnecessary cost to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalQME panelsupplemental reportcompensable consequenceindustrial injurydelivery driveradministrative law judgePetition for Removalfindings and order
References
Case No. ADJ9123534
Regular
Jul 18, 2015

PHILLIP WARD vs. CITY OF FORT BRAGG, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended an award, finding the defendant liable for a 15% increase in permanent disability benefits. This increase is due to the defendant's failure to offer the applicant qualified work within 60 days of his permanent and stationary status, as required by Labor Code section 4658(d)(2). While the applicant had retired, the Board found this did not excuse the employer from making a compliant work offer. The amended order clarifies the increase applies only to payments made 60 days after the Qualified Medical Evaluator's permanent and stationary report.

Labor Code section 4658(d)(2)permanent disability increaseoffer of workmodified workalternative workregular workpermanent and stationary60-day periodretirementCalPERS
References
Case No. ADJ2006433 (LAO 0799986) ADJ2790090 (LBO 0278759)
Regular
Sep 03, 2010

ORANGE PORTER vs. WESTEC GEAR CORPORATION, CNA CASUALTY OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was based on an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB had previously rescinded a prior award to correct errors and clarify issues, returning the matter to the Workers' Compensation Judge for further proceedings. Additionally, the applicant's claim that the WCAB exceeded the 60-day deadline for acting on the defendant's petition was rejected, as the decision was issued on the next business day after a furlough holiday.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissing PetitionInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderLabor Code § 5909Sixty Day RuleFurlough DayExecutive OrderTemporary Disability
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ4500251
Regular
Apr 07, 2025

EALISE CRUMB vs. APC TECHNOLOGY, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Ealise Crumb's petition for reconsideration against APC Technology, Inc. and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Board found the petition to be untimely as it was filed on January 27, 2025, past the December 20, 2024 deadline for reconsideration of the PWCJ's November 20, 2024 order. Additionally, the Board confirmed its timely action on the petition within 60 days of transmission, as required by the amended Labor Code section 5909. The untimeliness of the filing rendered the Board without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909untimely petition60-day periodtransmission dateEAMSnotice of transmissionservice of reportjurisdictional time limit
References
Case No. ADJ10305799
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

REBECCA BLUNT vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an earlier order. The defendant challenged the Board's jurisdiction, contending the applicant's prior reconsideration petition was automatically denied due to inaction within 60 days. The Board acknowledged a split in authority on whether an order granting reconsideration for further study constitutes a final order, an issue currently pending before the Supreme Court in related cases. To preserve the defendant's rights, the Board granted the petition and deferred a final decision after reconsideration, maintaining its continuing jurisdiction over the matter.

Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Granting PetitionJurisdiction60-day ruleTransmissionElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Final OrderInterlocutory OrderContinuing JurisdictionRes Judicata
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,279 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