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. 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. ADJ10306044
Regular
Apr 20, 2018

RELENA BELTRAN vs. SAEED KESHTAR DBA ROUND TABLE PIZZA, WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Relena Beltran's Petition for Reconsideration because it was skeletal, unverified, and lacked proof of service on opposing parties. The petition failed to detail specific grounds, evidence, or legal arguments, and did not include a required verification despite notice of the defect. Furthermore, subsequent filings were also deficient and rejected under Appeals Board rules. Consequently, the Board found the petition subject to dismissal based on statutory and regulatory requirements.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceWCJ ReportAppeals Board Rule 10848Labor Code § 5902Appeals Board Rule 10842Appeals Board Rule 10846Appeals Board Rule 10852
References
Case No. ADJ7414538
Regular
Sep 27, 2013

WILLOLA JOINTER vs. LOS ANGELES JOB CORPS CENTER, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant, Western Imaging Services, seeking reconsideration after its lien was denied by the Workers' Compensation Judge due to insufficient evidence regarding billing practices. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding Western misstated the evidence and the law, and failed to meet its burden of proof on the reasonableness of its charges. Furthermore, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions for apparent violations of rules regarding proper document execution and professional conduct. Western's petition misrepresented defendant's objections and cited outdated law, while failing to present evidence on the crucial issue of billing appropriateness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJBurden of ProofLabor CodeAppeals Board RulesSanctionsBad Faith
References
Case No. ADJ6535347, ADJ6534384
Regular
Nov 02, 2015

CHRISTINE KNAPP vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The applicant sought to overturn findings of $53\%$ permanent disability and disputed the exclusion of vocational expert reports and a claim of $100\%$ disability. The Board found the petition contained numerous factual misrepresentations and violations of WCAB rules and professional conduct by the applicant's attorney. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which recommended denial due to the petition's legal defects and factual inaccuracies.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardOccupational Group NumberIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderMigraine HeadachesPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical Examiner
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ9997985, ADJ9997986, ADJ10037755
Regular
Apr 10, 2017

DAVID LIVINGSTON vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC.;, PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION;, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for removal filed by the defendant. The WCAB found the petition was untimely because it was filed one day after the 20-day deadline for removal following personal service. This deadline is jurisdictional, and the WCAB cannot consider petitions filed outside this timeframe. Therefore, the petition was dismissed with no request for supplemental pleading granted.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingPersonal ServiceWCJ DecisionAppeals Board RuleJurisdictional Time LimitSupplemental PleadingWCAB Rule 10848WCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10507
References
Case No. ADJ10175718
Regular
Nov 13, 2018

MARJORIE MARLOW vs. AT&T

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed AT&T's Petition for Reconsideration because it was a "skeletal" filing. The petition failed to specifically detail the grounds for reconsideration, cite relevant evidence from the record, or explain how the findings were unsupported. The Board emphasized that petitions must comply with Labor Code section 5902 and Appeals Board Rules 10842, 10846, and 10852. Without these specific details, a petition is subject to dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesRule 10842Rule 10846Rule 10852Specific References to RecordGrounds for ReconsiderationMaterial Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ6918185
Regular
Jan 07, 2017

LORRAINE ROBBINS vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AAA AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration due to multiple procedural defects. Specifically, the petition was deemed skeletal, unverified, and lacked proof of service on adverse parties, all of which are required by Labor Code section 5902 and relevant Appeals Board Rules. The applicant was also provided notice of the lack of verification but failed to cure the defect. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and subsequent filings were rejected.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesWCJ ReportTimelinessVerification Defect
References
Case No. ADJ9655473
Regular
Jun 23, 2017

LETICIA SANTIAGO vs. SPRING HARVEST BERRY FARMS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The dismissal was primarily due to the petition being "skeletal," meaning it lacked specific grounds, details, and references to the record as required by Labor Code section 5902 and WCAB rules. Furthermore, the petition was filed without proper proof of service on adverse parties, violating Labor Code section 5905. The WCAB noted that even if these procedural defects were overlooked, the petition would have been denied on the merits based on the judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionProof of ServiceAdverse PartiesLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board Rules 10842Appeals Board Rules 10846Appeals Board Rules 10852DismissalWCJ Report
References
Case No. ADJ4297322
Regular
Apr 26, 2013

ARTURO SALAS vs. BAY CITY CONTAINERS, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration after their lien was dismissed by the WCJ for failing to appear at a lien conference. The lien claimant argued they filed an objection and that dismissal for non-appearance was improper under Rule 10562. Although the petition was deemed timely filed as the claimant received the dismissal order late, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition due to procedural defects. Specifically, the petition was not properly served on adverse parties and lacked specific references to the record and applicable law as required by Board rules.

WCABlien claimantpetition for reconsiderationorder dismissing liennotice of intention to dismiss lienlien conferencefailure to appearobjectionserviceLabor Code section 5903
References
Showing 1-10 of 17,008 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