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. ADJ3859668
Regular
Sep 05, 2014

GUY CULVER vs. TERRY DAY, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES/IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Guy Culver's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely filed. The Board found the petition was filed more than 25 days after the original order, exceeding the statutory 20-day limit plus 5 days for mailing. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013DismissalApplicantDefendantState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
0
Case No. ADJ7557927
Regular
May 08, 2012

AJ SCROGGINS vs. WORLD COLOR, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petitions for reconsideration and removal as untimely. The defendant filed both petitions 26 days after the Amended Findings, Award, and Order were served by mail, exceeding the 20-day statutory limit plus the additional five days for mail service. The Appeals Board also noted that even if the petitions were timely, they would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report. The defendant's request to disqualify the Administrative Law Judge was also dismissed as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAmended Findings Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryTemporary DisabilityMedical TreatmentImpeach Applicant TestimonySub Rosa Video EvidenceExclusion of Evidence
References
4
Case No. ADJ7728245
Regular
Sep 24, 2012

GUILLERMINA VALENZUELA vs. GLEN ABBEY MEMORIAL PARK/SCI, OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed 43 days after the judge's decision, exceeding the 20-day limit plus a 5-day mail extension. Additionally, the applicant failed to provide proof of service on the defendants and her former attorney, which is grounds for dismissal. Even if the petition were timely and properly served, the Board would have denied it based on the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's testimony not credible regarding her alleged industrial injury. Therefore, the applicant's petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingProof of ServiceDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ CredibilityIndustrial InjuryIn Pro PerLabor CodeCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
8
Case No. ADJ710353 (VNO 0479290)
Regular
Jun 04, 2012

DIMAS POSADA vs. PARKWOOD LANDSCAPE & MAINTENANCE, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The WCAB determined that the petition was submitted 36 days after the Order Dismissing Lien Claim was served, exceeding the statutory 20-day period plus an additional five days for mail service. As a result, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the lien claimant's arguments. The lien claimant had argued the dismissal was due to a missed hearing caused by a file transfer and timely responded to a notice.

WCABADJ710353VNO 0479290Dimas PosadaParkwood Landscape & MaintenanceEverest National Insurance CompanyBel Air Surgical InstituteExpert Medical ReviewOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimNotice of Intention to Dismiss Lien
References
2
Case No. ADJ2071191 (OXN 0127334)
Regular
May 29, 2013

IRENE MCLEAN vs. BRISTOL FARMS, INC., SPRINGFIELD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Irene McLean's Petition for Reconsideration against Bristol Farms, Inc. and Springfield Insurance Company. The petition was dismissed primarily because it was filed untimely, exceeding the statutory 20-day deadline plus 5 days for mailing. Additionally, the petition was not properly served on all adverse parties as required by law. Even if it had been timely and properly served, the WCAB would have denied it on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalLabor Code § 5903Code of Civil Procedure § 1013ServiceAdverse PartiesLabor Code § 5905WCAB Rules 10505WCAB Rules 10850
References
0
Case No. ADJ2648520
Regular
Mar 17, 2011

REYLENE ROSAS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed 61 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision, exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline. The Board found proof of timely service by mail on the lien claimant's official address of record. Even if service were defective, the petition would still be untimely as it was filed 26 days after the claimant acknowledged receiving the decision, exceeding the 20-day period for filing after actual receipt in such cases. The Board would have also denied the petition on its merits had it not been dismissed for untimeliness.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalFindings and OrderWCJService by MailJurisdictional Time LimitsOfficial Address RecordDeclaration of Mailing
References
12
Case No. ADJ422753 (VNO 0509159) ADJ2915607 (VNO 0520492) ADJ4269574 (VNO 0441793) ADJ886906 (VNO 0440737) ADJ219082 (VNO 0441794)
Regular
Mar 26, 2008

JULIANA AGUILLON vs. LEISURE TIME ENTERTAINMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Juliana Aguillon's petition for reconsideration of a March 26, 2008 Order Approving Compromise and Release. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely, as it was filed over three years after the order issued, far exceeding the jurisdictional 20-day filing deadline. Additionally, the Board noted the petition was skeletal and lacked specificity in its grounds for appeal. Therefore, the Board dismissed the petition.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Jurisdictional Time LimitSkeletal PetitionDismissalCase NumbersAdministrative Law Judge
References
6
Case No. ADJ8191769, ADJ8195704
Regular
Sep 28, 2015

GILBERT FLORES vs. GREIF, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA

This case involves a petition for removal or reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The primary reason for dismissal was that the petition was untimely filed, exceeding the 20-day deadline following personal service of the WCJ's decision. The WCAB clarified that timely filing requires receipt by the Board within the deadline, not just mailing. Since the petition was filed more than 20 days after personal service, it was jurisdictional invalid and therefore dismissed.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingPersonal ServiceWCJ Decision20-Day LimitJurisdictional Time LimitAppeals Board AuthorityReport and RecommendationFinal Order
References
4
Case No. ADJ8824674
Regular
Mar 15, 2018

MIGUEL MONTES vs. KOLE, INC. DBA QUALITY TUNE UP #8, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a Petition for Removal that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed as untimely. The petitioner failed to file their removal petition within the prescribed 20-day period plus additional mailing time, submitting it one day late. Even if timely, the WCAB would have denied it on the merits, agreeing with the WCJ that the billing dispute was subject to Independent Bill Review (IBR) and not the WCAB's jurisdiction. The WCAB emphasized that if the sole dispute is the amount of payment and a second review failed, IBR is the proper avenue under Labor Code section 4603.6.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardUntimely FilingService of OrderLegal MailingIndependent Bill ReviewLabor Code Section 4603.2Labor Code Section 4603.6Medical Provider NetworkJurisdiction
References
1
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06834
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of Curcio v. Sherwood 370 Mgt., LLC

The claimant, James Curcio, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board which affirmed that the employer's workers' compensation carrier made a timely payment of benefits. The case revolved around the calculation of a 10-day payment period following a waiver of compensation agreement, with a holiday (Memorial Day) affecting the calculation start date. The Board found the payment on June 9, 2017, was timely, based on General Construction Law § 20. Additionally, a $500 penalty was assessed against claimant's attorney for seeking administrative review without reasonable grounds, a decision upheld by the Appellate Division based on Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii).

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimely PaymentWaiver AgreementPenalty ImpositionGeneral Construction LawAttorney FeesAdministrative ReviewHoliday CalculationAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 8,702 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