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. ADJ9170309
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Miguel Mosqueda vs. City of Clearlake

Applicant Miguel Mosqueda sought reconsideration of a July 25, 2025 decision which found his injuries were not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct or violation of safety orders. Mosqueda, a maintenance worker, suffered catastrophic injuries, including paraplegia, after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree for the City of Clearlake. He contended that the employer violated several Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 sections related to safety, training, and equipment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct and that no alleged safety violation was the proximate cause of the accident.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderViolation of statuteViolation of safety orderCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3203Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(d)(1)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(e)(15)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(b)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(d)
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. ADJ8040967, ADJ8215681
Regular
Feb 25, 2016

MARIA ORTIZ vs. J KOREAN BBQ, FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for removal in *Ortiz v. J Korean BBQ* because it was untimely filed. The petition was submitted on January 25, 2016, exceeding the 25-day deadline from the WCJ's December 18, 2015 decision. Filing with the Board, not just mailing, within the statutory period is required for timeliness. The Board also noted that had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportCal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10843(a)Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10507(a)(1)
References
Case No. ADJ10387805
Regular
Oct 28, 2019

PARDEEP SINGH vs. 7 ELEVEN, MITSUI SUMITOMO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pardee Singh's Petition for Reconsideration. The petition was deemed untimely because it was filed on August 28, 2019, which was after the jurisdictional deadline of August 26, 2019. This deadline was calculated from the service date of an Order Allowing Costs on August 1, 2019. The WCAB clarified that for a petition to be timely, it must be *received* by the board within the statutory period, not merely mailed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWCABWCJLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5903Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10507Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10508Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10845
References
Case No. ADJ10387444, ADJ10387443
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

TERESA GALLEGOS vs. OMEGA EXTRUDING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Teresa Gallegos' petition for reconsideration. The petition was deemed "skeletal" for failing to specify grounds, cite evidence, or articulate legal principles. Additionally, it was dismissed for lack of proof of service on the adverse party, Omega Extruding Corporation. The Board noted that even if not dismissed on procedural grounds, the petition would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionProof of ServiceAdverse PartyLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10842Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10846Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10852Labor Code § 5905
References
Case No. ADJ9 025769, ADJ9 029889
Regular
May 02, 2016

JOSH BLACKWELL vs. COUNTY OF LAKE, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision dismisses a petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed significantly after the 25-day jurisdictional deadline, even considering potential extensions. The Board emphasizes that filing means receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing. Although untimely, the Board notes that had it been timely, the petition would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLab. Code §§ 59005903Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10507Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10508
References
Case No. GOL 0088273
Regular
Aug 18, 2008

ROBERT SIEBURG vs. RONALD WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and returned the case for further development of the record. The Board found the findings of the administrative law judge regarding $97\%$ permanent disability and apportionment were not supported by substantial medical evidence. Specifically, the opinion of Dr. Kahmann was deemed deficient due to internal inconsistencies, lack of explanation for apportionment, and undefined work restrictions. The Board also found Dr. Basham's report did not meet the standard for substantial medical evidence regarding cognitive dysfunction.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDROBERT SIEBURGRONALD WOLFE & ASSOCIATESSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDGOL 0088273OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONFindings and AwardWCJmaintenance person
References
Case No. ADJ7509509
Regular
Oct 08, 2016

Tuong Vy Nguyen vs. MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed applicant Tuong Vy Nguyen's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was primarily based on the applicant's failure to comply with WCAB rules requiring specific references to the record and legal principles. Furthermore, the WCAB noted that even if the petition were procedurally sound, the medical evidence did not support an industrial injury for the claimed period. The Board also cited the improper attachment of exhibits to the petition as a violation of procedural rules.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJIn Pro PerLab. Code § 5902Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10846
References
Case No. ADJ7181805
Regular
Sep 17, 2013

MARIA SANCHEZ vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST.

This case involves a lien claimant whose lien was dismissed for failing to pay the required lien activation fee before a scheduled lien conference. The claimant argued that defense counsel informed them the conference was scheduled in error, but the Board found this was not a valid reason to avoid the fee. The Board affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing that only the Board, not private parties, can cancel a conference. The claimant was also admonished for failing to properly notify the Board of changes in representation.

Lien Activation FeePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimLien ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardElectronic Adjudication Management SystemDeath BenefitsOff CalendarCal. Code Regs tit. 8 § 10240(a)Lab. Code § 4903.06(a)
References
Showing 1-10 of 10,372 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