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. ADJ11350389
Regular
Sep 23, 2025

JOSE PEREZ LEDESMA, Marjorie Martinez Interpreting vs. RUIZ & SON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that ruled a notice to produce was an invalid discovery mechanism. The WCAB found that California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10642 expressly permits the use of notices to produce in workers' compensation proceedings, similar to Civil Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). Therefore, the defendant was ordered to produce the relevant interpreter payment and Explanation of Review documents requested by the cost petitioner. This decision emphasizes the system's intent for a simple and nontechnical path to relief, allowing authorized discovery methods.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationNotice to ProduceSubpoenaWCJRemovalLabor CodeCode of Civil ProcedureRule 10642Explanation of Review
References
10
Case No. BGN 63300; BGN 63301 BGN 63302; BGN 63303
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

HARDISTENE HOWARD vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, RTD; TRAVELERS

The applicant filed a "Petition the Court for Judge Dismissal" alleging a violation of Labor Code section 5312 by the Workers' Compensation Judge. The Board treated this as a petition for disqualification, but dismissed it because it lacked the required affidavit of disqualification and did not state grounds for disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641.

Petition for disqualificationLabor Code section 5311Petition for removalLabor Code section 5310WCAB Rule 10452Mandatory settlement conferenceWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardUnrepresented applicantProof of service
References
0
Case No. SAC 0315585
Regular
Sep 18, 2007

Bradley Dorigo vs. State of California, Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

This case concerns the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund's (SIF) liability for an applicant's vocational rehabilitation counselor fees. The Appeals Board affirmed a prior award requiring SIF to reimburse a portion of the vocational expert's fees, despite SIF's arguments that it was not liable for such costs. The Board cited prior writ-denied cases and relevant statutes, including Code of Civil Procedure section 1028 and Labor Code section 5708, to support its decision.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundVocational rehabilitation expertLabor Code section 4751Compromise and releaseStipulated awardPermanent disabilityReimbursementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeCode of Civil Procedure section 1028
References
3
Case No. ADJ6905239
Regular
Oct 07, 2025

ROBERT GARRISON vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK CMS

The applicant filed a petition seeking to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to alleged bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition, along with the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. The Board determined that the petition did not establish valid grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, citing that expressions of opinion in official duties or erroneous rulings do not constitute bias. Consequently, the WCAB denied the applicant's petition for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ BiasLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641Unqualified OpinionState of Mind Evincing EnmityWCAB Rule 10960Affidavit or DeclarationTimely Filing
References
10
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. ADJ3140199 (RIV 0068905) ADJ966589 (RIV 0068906) ADJ3180444 (RIV 0068982)
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

JOSE L. JARA vs. IMPERIAL WESTERN PRODUCTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jose L. Jara's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition was untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Findings and Award was issued on October 18, 2013. This timeframe violates Labor Code section 5903 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 regarding timely reconsideration filings. Consequently, the WCAB has ordered the dismissal of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Administrative Law JudgeRecord ReviewOrder
References
0
Case No. ADJ1807866 (VNO 0555240)
Regular
Nov 06, 2013

ELVIRA ANAYA vs. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, TRISTAR

This case involves Elvira Anaya's workers' compensation claims against Grimmway Enterprises. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration filed by an applicant/defendant/lien claimant. The dismissal is due to the petition being filed untimely, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Order Amending Finding of Fact issued on July 5, 2013. This failure to meet the statutory filing deadline under Labor Code section 5903 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 mandates the dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationuntimelydismissalWCABLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Order Amending Finding of Factadministrative law judgeGrimmway EnterprisesTristar
References
0
Case No. ADJ7397383
Regular
Dec 07, 2012

JOSE GARCIA vs. PRODUCTION PLUS PLUMBING, INC., MATRIX INSURANCE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Jose Garcia concerning a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was not filed within the 25-day statutory period. This deadline included the 20 days allowed by Labor Code section 5903 plus 5 additional days for mailing per Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Consequently, the Board adopted the administrative law judge's recommendation and dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Dismissal OrderApplicantDefendant
References
0
Case No. ADJ9287010
Regular
Oct 22, 2015

Esther Rodriguez vs. MANUEL VILLA ENTERPRISE, NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, reversing a previous order that deemed her strike from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel untimely. The Board found that the applicant's strike was timely under Labor Code section 4062.2(c) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a), which extends the 10-day striking period by five days when the panel assignment is mailed. Consequently, Dr. James Shaw was designated as the proper QME, and the WCJ's prior order was rescinded.

Petition for RemovalQME paneluntimely strikesubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmLabor Code section 4062.2(c)Senate Bill 863Messele v. Pitco FoodsInc.Agreed Medical Evaluator
References
7
Case No. ADJ8266893
Regular
May 21, 2013

ALI JIRDE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - DISTRICT 6, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on March 29, 2013, more than 20 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was personally served on March 6, 2013. As the decision was personally served, the five-day mailing extension under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 did not apply. The WCAB noted that timely filing is jurisdictional and therefore lacked the power to grant the untimely petition. However, defendants retain the option to file a Petition to Reopen.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitPersonal ServiceMailing ExtensionLabor Code Section 5903WCAB Rule 10507Petition to ReopenWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ's Report and Recommendation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 9,463 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