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. ADJ1 503071 (RDG 0073273)
Regular
Feb 29, 2016

MON'TIE EMERY vs. TRINITY HOSPITAL

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration filed by Montie Emery against Trinity Hospital. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely. The WCAB clarified that a petition for reconsideration must be *received* by the Board within 25 days of the decision's service, not just mailed. Since the petition was filed over 25 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider it.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJJurisdictionalProof of FilingService by MailExtension of TimeBusiness Day
References
Case No. ADJ2730977 (VNO 0472204)
Regular
Dec 23, 2013

JAMES FOLLOWAY vs. ACCOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., doing business as MOTEL 6, UNITED STATES FIRE & GUARANTEE INSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

In *Followay v. Accor North America, Inc.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's reasoning that the petition was filed 26 days after service by mail of the prior order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be *filed* (received by) the Board within 25 days, not merely mailed. Proof of mailing within the deadline is insufficient if the petition is not received within that jurisdictional timeframe.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgejurisdictionalDismissalService by mailProof of serviceFiling date
References
Case No. ADJ481937 (RIV 0081478)
Regular
Mar 08, 2018

JERRY OLVERA vs. CEMENT UNLIMITED, IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

In Olvera v. Cement Unlimited, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was electronically filed one day after the jurisdictional deadline of January 23, 2018, as the Order Dismissing Lien was served by mail on December 29, 2017. The Board reiterated that the filing deadline is jurisdictional and requires actual receipt of the petition, not just proof of mailing. Therefore, the Appeals Board lacked the authority to consider the merits of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeService by MailProof of FilingElectronic FilingOrder Dismissing LienMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ8438087
Regular
Feb 24, 2017

CONSUELO ACEVEDO vs. SYSTEM SOLDING USA, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending a prior decision to find that Tri-City Health Group's lien was timely filed. The Board affirmed the finding that Komberg Chiropractic's lien was barred by the statute of limitations due to late filing on December 29, 2015, when services ended December 28, 2012. However, Tri-City Health Group's lien, filed electronically on March 21, 2016, was deemed timely, as the deadline of March 19, 2016, fell on a weekend and the next business day was utilized. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding Tri-City Health Group's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsStatute of LimitationsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 4903.5EAMSElectronic FilingBusiness DayTimely Filed
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. ADJ2178733 (BAK 0154115)
Regular
May 27, 2014

LIDIA BUENO vs. RAVILA FARM LABOR SERVICES, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant, Biocare RX Specialty Pharmacy, whose lien was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Biocare argued the dismissal was erroneous because it had not yet filed a lien. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinding the dismissal order. The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to dismiss a lien that had not been filed and that Biocare was improperly dismissed for non-appearance at a lien conference for which it received no notice.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder to Dismiss LiensWCJBiocare RX Specialty PharmacyElite Lien Servicesjurisdictionfiled lienLabor Code section 4903.5industrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ7020366
Regular
Aug 22, 2013

OCTAVIO GONZALEZ vs. BODEGA LATHE CORPORATION, PACIFIC COMP INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Octavio Gonzalez's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was submitted more than 25 days after the administrative law judge's decision, exceeding the 20-day statutory limit, which can be extended by five days for mail. Because the deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional, the Board lacked the authority to consider it. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits as well.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingJurisdictional time limitLabor Code section 5903Administrative Law JudgeWCJ's Report and RecommendationMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. HaglerScott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ9893563
Regular
Aug 19, 2019

ISRAEL ANGULO RUGERIO vs. ANS CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a decision regarding TruCare Pharmacy's liens. The prior decision found the defendant failed to prove TruCare was subject to a statutory stay, as it did not demonstrate a controlling indicted provider under Labor Code section 139.21. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the case to the trial level for consolidation with a master file proceeding addressing common issues concerning TruCare and Labor Code section 4615. This consolidation aims to ensure consistent rulings, due process, and judicial economy given the complex factual and legal issues involved.

TruCare PharmacyLabor Code section 4615WCJPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of ConsolidationSpecial Adjudication UnitMaster Filelien claimantindictmentstay
References
Case No. ADJ9061807
Regular
May 26, 2016

VIRGINIA ALONZO vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Virginia Alonzo's petition for reconsideration due to untimeliness. The petition was filed on April 4, 2016, more than 25 days after the WCJ's February 25, 2016 decision. Filing deadlines for reconsideration petitions are jurisdictional, and the Board lacks authority to act on late submissions. Additionally, the petitioner's representation notice was noted as deficient.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB RulesProof of FilingNotice of RepresentationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemService by MailCalifornia Labor Code
References
Case No. ADJ2829061 (SDO 0316299)
Regular
Oct 11, 2013

JOSE ABRIL vs. BARDON ENTERPRISES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCIES

This case involves a Petition for Removal by the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) seeking to dismiss liens filed by Mission Valley Heights Surgery Center and Poway Surgery Center. SCIF argued that a prior decision dismissing their liens in a separate case should apply to all liens within the current consolidation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied SCIF's petition, clarifying that the prior dismissal was limited to the specific case cited and did not affect all liens in the consolidation. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning and declined to consider sanctions.

Petition for RemovalMaster FileConsolidationLien Activation FeesDismissed LiensSanctionsWCABWCJState Compensation Insurance FundMission Valley Heights Surgery Center
References
Showing 1-10 of 4,702 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