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. LAO 0863476
Regular
Jul 31, 2007

MARIA ANA PAREDES (Deceased) CARLOS ALFREDO ALVAREZ vs. ANDROMEDA ENTERTAINMENT INC., dba CLUB GALAXY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the judge's denial of a motion to compel, and ordered the applicant to answer deposition questions. The Board found that the applicant's attorney improperly instructed the applicant not to answer questions regarding financial support in El Salvador and employment history, as such questions were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under liberal discovery rules. The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it reviewed a non-final interlocutory order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMotion to CompelDeposition QuestionsIndustrial InjuryCerebellar HemorrhageWidowerGuardian ad LitemDiscovery Rules
References
8
Case No. ADJ16243827
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

MICHAEL STONEBARGER vs. SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES

Applicant sought removal of an Order Denying Petition for Change of Venue, alleging bias from a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The defendant did not file an answer to the petition, and the PWCJ recommended denial. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, concluding that the applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the Board dismissed the petition for disqualification, finding it lacked sufficient factual allegations under penalty of perjury and documentation of irreparable harm to establish disqualification.

RemovalDisqualificationPetition for RemovalPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ BiasSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641
References
23
Case No. ADJ8717299
Regular
Mar 14, 2017

JOSEPH LOBB vs. JEFFREY D. HADDEN, JEFFREY D. HADDEN AND DOROTHY M. HADDEN DBA NAT PEST CONTROL AND FIREWOOK AKA NPC, DOROTHY M. HADDEN, NATURAL PEST CONTROLS FIREWOOD

This case involves an employer's objection, treated as a petition for reconsideration, to a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that awarded benefits to an employee. The employers claim they never received notice of the original WCJ's decision or subsequent Board actions, including the September 2, 2016 decision. The WCAB found that the employers were indeed deprived of due process due to improper service. Consequently, the WCAB granted reconsideration to allow the employers to file an answer and ensure a just decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessImproper NoticeOfficial Address RecordProof of ServiceDeclaration of ServiceToll StatuteActual NoticeWCJ DecisionAppeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ10069954
Regular
Dec 21, 2015

MAURO PEREZ vs. FAMILY TREE SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was based on an interlocutory order that did not determine substantive rights or a threshold issue. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would likely be an adequate remedy later. The defendants' procedural objection regarding venue was resolved by their filing of a verified answer.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
6
Case No. ADJ4570795 (SAL 066339)
Regular
Nov 08, 2010

DOMINICK TAORMINA vs. CITY OF SALINAS, ET AL.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns Dominick Taormina versus the City of Salinas. The Board granted the defendant's request to file a supplemental petition, allowing them to respond to the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report and recommendations. However, the Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of the July 20, 2010 Findings and Order, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Additionally, Westport Insurance Company was admonished for exceeding page limits in their answer without prior permission.

WCABSupplemental PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportWestport Insurance CompanyCCR 10848CCR 10845Findings and OrderService by Mail
References
0
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
Case No. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685)
Regular
Aug 15, 2014

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a second Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant Pamela Zeilstra challenging prior orders and the Appeals Board's own prior decision. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was a successive filing after a previous petition had already been denied. The Board clarified that once a petition for reconsideration is denied or dismissed, the proper recourse is a writ of review, not another petition. Applicant's subsequent answer was also rejected as procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationConsecutive PetitionSuccessive PetitionDismissedAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Writ of ReviewCrowe Glass Company
References
3
Case No. ADJ7768905
Regular
Sep 13, 2016

TRACEY LOMBARDI vs. SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition, which sought disqualification of the administrative law judge, removal, and reconsideration. The disqualification petition was denied as untimely, filed after the swearing of the first witness. The removal petition failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Finally, the reconsideration petition was dismissed because it did not seek review of a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5311Appeals Board Rule 10452Untimely PetitionExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ20858483, ADJ20601502
Regular
Oct 21, 2025

JORGE LUIS MARTINEZ vs. AUGUSTINE SPECIALTY FINISHING, OMAHA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Jorje Luis Martinez filed a Petition for Removal to challenge a WCJ's decision to continue an expedited hearing. The defendants filed an Answer, and the WCJ recommended denying the petition. However, before the Board could rule, the parties reached an agreement for a joint continuance with a discovery plan, rendering the Petition for Removal moot. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition, admonishing applicant's attorney, Susan Garrett, for failing to withdraw the moot petition and wasting judicial resources, while reserving the issue of sanctions for potential future misconduct.

Petition for Removalmootcontinuanceexpedited hearingregular trial datesanctionsbad faithfrivolous tacticsjudicial resourceswithdrawal of petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ3808038 (LAO 0819022)
Regular
Feb 11, 2010

NICOLAS F. BENINKOFF (Deceased), LORENA BENINKOFF (Widow) vs. DARCO METAL SURFACING, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied petitions for removal and reconsideration from lien claimants and the defendant, and denied the applicant's reconsideration petition. Lien claimants Kan and Ace's petition for removal was denied as they failed to show substantial prejudice, and their reconsideration petition was dismissed as the prior order was not final. The applicant's reconsideration petition was denied because her claim for home healthcare services was deemed an untimely lien claim under Labor Code section 4903.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationLien ClaimantsUntimely LienLabor Code section 4903.5Labor Code section 5405Home Healthcare ServicesMedical TreatmentTransportation Expenses
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 14,328 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