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. ADJ9109256
Regular
Oct 27, 2016

STACY GARRAFA vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.; ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was untimely. California law allows 25 days to file a petition for reconsideration after a decision is served by mail, with potential extensions for weekends or holidays. However, the petition must be *received* by the Board within this period, not merely mailed. In this case, the petition was filed on September 7, 2016, which was over 25 days after the August 12, 2016 decision. As the filing deadline is jurisdictional, the Board lacked the authority to consider the untimely petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWCJ decisionFiling deadlineJurisdictionalAppeals BoardMailing vs. FilingOctober 272016
References
Case No. ADJ9478055
Regular
Mar 18, 2020

CHARLES HART vs. TOWN OF LOS GATOS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration granted by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB adopted the workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) report and amended the original decision. The amended decision clarifies that the applicant, Charles Hart, sustained temporary disability from August 11, 2011, to November 16, 2016, payable at a specific weekly rate, subject to credits and attorney fees. The amended decision otherwise affirmed the original ruling.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reporttemporary disabilityAugust 112011November 162016$847.01attorney fees
References
Case No. ADJ2308352 (SBR 0341903) ADJ3554086 (SBR 0323156)
Regular
Nov 21, 2016

STEPHEN WEBBER vs. L. J. SNOW FORD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Stephen Webber's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. California law requires such petitions to be received by the WCAB within 25 days of the administrative law judge's decision, with extensions for weekends or holidays. In this case, the petition was filed on September 27, 2016, one day after the jurisdictional deadline of September 26, 2016. As the deadline is jurisdictional, the WCAB lacked authority to consider the untimely petition.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimely filingjurisdictional time limitWCABadministrative law judgeLabor CodeCalifornia Code of Regulationsproof of mailingproof of receiptSeptember 1
References
Case No. GOL 96757
Regular
Jun 10, 2008

SA YANG LO vs. CUSTOM SENSORS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior award, upholding the application of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. The Board found that exceptions allowing for the 1997 Schedule did not apply, as the applicant's temporary disability indemnity extended beyond January 1, 2005, and no qualifying pre-2005 reports indicated permanent disability. Furthermore, the Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinion regarding diminished future earning capacity unpersuasive, thus affirming the initial 9% permanent disability rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSA Yang LoCustom Sensors & TechnologiesInc.State Compensation Insurance FundGOL 96757Opinion and Order Denying ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ10306129
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

MICHAEL LAMBERT vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY REGION IV, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration filed by the State of California, Department of Forestry Region IV and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Board found the petition was untimely as it was filed on October 24, 2016, three days after the jurisdictional deadline of October 21, 2016. This deadline was calculated based on the service of the original decision by mail on September 26, 2016. The Board reiterated that filing by mail is insufficient; the petition must be received by the Board within the statutory timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationuntimelydismissalservice by mailjurisdictionalOpinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationuntimely filingOctober 21
References
Case No. ADJ10228159
Regular
Nov 14, 2016

MARIA CUEVAS vs. AG UNLIMITED, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, YORK RISK SERVICES

This case involves an untimely Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant Maria Cuevas. The applicant's Findings and Order were served by mail and email on August 18, 2016. The deadline to file a petition for reconsideration was September 12, 2016, including five additional days for mail service. The petition was not filed until September 22, 2016. The Appeals Board found no evidence of defective service and therefore dismissed the petition as untimely.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalJurisdictionalService of ProcessOfficial Address RecordEAMSDefective ServiceWCJ ReportSupplemental Pleading
References
Case No. ADJ9271600
Regular
Oct 02, 2017

JESUS BARRERA vs. UMAMI RESTAURANT, LLC, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jesus Barrera's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The WCJ's decision was personally served, triggering a strict 20-day filing deadline for reconsideration, not subject to mail service extensions. Barrera's representative had until August 8, 2017, to file, but the petition was received on August 9, 2017. As the deadline is jurisdictional, the WCAB lacked authority to consider the untimely petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingPersonal Service20-Day LimitJurisdictionalWCABWCJLabor Code SectionsCalifornia Code of RegulationsOrder Dismissing Lien
References
Case No. ADJ4134943 (LAO 0800933), ADJ2639030 (LAO 0847979)
Regular
Jan 14, 2016

ARTURO GUILLEN vs. PRO AMERICA PREMIUM TOOLS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, PACIFIC NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, HIGHLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by Highlands Insurance Company regarding a prior decision that found the applicant sustained two cumulative trauma injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, finding one injury occurred when Pacific National Insurance Company was the insurer and the second injury occurred when Highlands was the insurer. Highlands argued the applicant sustained only one cumulative trauma injury or a single specific injury. The Board denied Highlands' petition, upholding the determination of two distinct cumulative trauma injuries.

Cumulative trauma injuryCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAPacific National Insurance CompanyHighlands Insurance CompanyPro America Premium ToolsPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationinsurer in liquidationservicing facility
References
Case No. ADJ4408007 (STK 0205209)
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

CLIAS MONTES vs. TRUEGREEN LANDCARE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration in case ADJ4408007. This dismissal was based on the fact that the Workers' Compensation Judge had already vacated the original Findings and Award on August 1, 2013. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration of the July 26, 2013 decision was rendered moot.

Petition for ReconsiderationMootVacatedFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissedJuly 262013August 12013
References
Case No. ADJ10195356
Regular
Dec 05, 2010

MICHAEL PEARSALL vs. CSJ SAIZ CONSTRUCTION, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, ADJ10195356, involves Michael Pearsall as the applicant and CSJ Saiz Construction and Applied Risk Services as defendants. The Board issued an order dismissing the applicant's Petition for Removal. This dismissal is due to the petitioner voluntarily withdrawing the petition that sought removal of a prior decision.

Petition for RemovalDismissalApplicantDefendantCSJ Saiz ConstructionApplied Risk ServicesMichael PearsallADJ10195356Fresno District OfficeAugust 16 2016
References
Showing 1-10 of 558 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