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. ADJ7176285
Regular
May 23, 2011

FRANCISCO CASAS LEYVA vs. WAR MART #2242, AVIZENT FRANK GATES SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of a prior decision regarding Francisco Casas Leyva's claim against War Mart \#2242 and Avizent Frank Gates Services. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCALJ) in its decision. The Board also gave great weight to the WCALJ's credibility findings. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was formally denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFrancisco Casas LeyvaWar MartAvizent Frank Gates ServicesOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.credibility finding
References
1
Case No. ADJ9052447
Regular
Oct 13, 2018

JACQUELINE FINDLER vs. WALMART, AVIZENT, YORK INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration in *Findler v. Walmart*. The WCAB adopted the findings of the WCJ, who found that the lien claimant failed to provide sufficient evidence of the reasonable value of services rendered. This was because the applicable fee schedule did not control for services provided before its effective date. Therefore, the lien claimant was required to present evidence of reasonable value, which they did not adequately do.

Jacqueline FindlerWalmartAvizentYork InsuranceADJ9052447Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJOpinion and Order DenyingAdministrative Director Rule 9983
References
4
Case No. ADJ7004129, ADJ7004132
Regular
Nov 23, 2010

KIMBERLEY ZACHRY vs. PARC MANAGEMENT, LLC, AVIZENT

This case involves Parc Management, LLC's unverified petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The defendant argued the administrative law judge erred in awarding temporary disability, deferring the permanent disability rating for the right knee, and calculating the permanent disability benefit rate. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was unverified and the defendant failed to cure this defect or provide an acceptable explanation within a reasonable time. Consequently, the original Findings of Fact, Order, and Award remain in effect.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionFindings of Fact Order and AwardIndustrial InjuryRight Knee InjuryCumulative InjuryCervical Spine InjuryPermanent DisabilityTemporary Disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ3907382 (AHM0133851)
Regular
Sep 23, 2009

MYKEAL ANDREW WAGNER vs. WALMART and AVIZENT BENTONVILLE

The applicant filed a second petition for reconsideration challenging a prior Appeals Board decision that had already dismissed a previous petition. The Appeals Board dismissed this subsequent petition because it was a successive filing. The Board established that after a petition for reconsideration is denied or dismissed, a party must seek a writ of review, not another reconsideration. Therefore, the applicant's petition was dismissed as procedurally improper.

Successive petitionPetition for reconsiderationDismissalWrit of reviewAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardConsecutive petitionAdministrative law judgeNew evidenceOpinion and Order
References
1
Case No. ADJ696907 (VNO 0543817)
Regular
Jul 23, 2010

ROBERT PERCHLAK vs. WAL-MART, AVIZENT BENTONVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered a decision regarding Robert Perchlak's industrial injury claim against Wal-Mart. The applicant challenged the $44\%$ permanent disability rating, arguing the rating specialist improperly disregarded physician findings. The WCAB clarified that rating specialists are limited to rating based on WCJ instructions and cannot independently assess medical impairments or deviate from AMA Guides criteria. The WCAB amended the decision to defer permanent disability and attorney's fees, returning the case for further proceedings to clarify the physician's impairment findings and ensure proper rating procedures are followed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRobert PerchlakWal-MartAvizent BentonvilleOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentDr. Arthur LipperAppeals Board Rule 10602Rater Authority
References
1
Case No. ADJ7081229
Regular
Jul 19, 2012

Patricia Johnson vs. Sam's Club/Walmart, Avizent

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Patricia Johnson's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCALJ), finding no error in the original decision. The Board gave great weight to the WCALJ's credibility findings, as is customary under *Garza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDenying ReconsiderationWCJ ReportCredibility FindingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ7081229San Diego District OfficePatricia JohnsonSam's Club/WalmartAvizent
References
1
Case No. ADJ3907382 (AHM 0133851)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

Mayekal andREW WAGNER vs. WALMART, AVIZENT BENTONVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was not verified as required by law. The applicant's own petition, initially filed as a complaint against the judge, was also denied due to its lack of specificity regarding grounds and supporting evidence. The Board noted the applicant may have intended to file a judicial ethics complaint instead. Therefore, both petitions were ultimately rejected, upholding the original June 12, 2009 Findings, Award, and Orders.

Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationVerified petitionLabor Code section 5902Judicial ethics complaintComplaint About a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJFindings Award and OrdersUnlawful or unjustMaterial evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ6548054
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

ROBERT ROTH vs. WABI SABI TEPPAN STEAKHOUSE, AVIZENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to applicant Robert Roth. The Board found that Roth's claim is not barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) because his medical records contained evidence of his hernia injury prior to his layoff. This decision overturns the WCJ's prior finding that the claim was barred due to a lack of documented causation in the pre-termination medical records. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the remaining issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Factindustrial injuryherniadiverticulitispsycheabdominal injurypre-existing condition
References
1
Case No. SJO 0256905
Regular
Jul 17, 2008

FERDINAND LIZARDO vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, AVIZENT/FRANK GATES SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, holding that an order taking a case off calendar is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order subject to reconsideration. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding that the WCJ did not abuse discretion by taking the case off calendar to consolidate it with another claim for judicial economy, as the defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice. The defendant's arguments regarding due process and potential future medical-legal costs were found insufficient grounds for removal.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaloff calendardue processirreparable harmsignificant prejudiceinterlocutory orderfinal ordersubstantive right or liability
References
7
Case No. ADJ7220508
Regular
Oct 29, 2010

ANDREW PORTILLO vs. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. administered by AVIZENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Wal-Mart's petition for reconsideration and denied its petition for removal regarding a denied change of venue. The WCAB found that the order denying the venue change was not a final order, thus not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900. The Board also adopted the findings of the acting presiding judge in denying the removal petition. Therefore, the case will proceed as originally scheduled.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalChange of VenueFinal OrderLabor Code section 5900District OfficeSan Bernardino CountyLong Beach District OfficeSubstantive Rights
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 20 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