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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ8835727
Regular
Oct 05, 2015

ELVIRA MAYA vs. WENTE VINEYARDS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the timeliness of a defendant's strike of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The Appeals Board determined that the ten-day period to strike a QME from a panel, as per Labor Code section 4062.2(c), is extended by five days when service is by U.S. mail, consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a). Consequently, the defendant's strike of Dr. Boyd was deemed timely, and the applicant must now be examined by the remaining panel member, Dr. Gardner. The prior WCJ decision finding the strike untimely was rescinded.

WCABReconsiderationRemovalPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationPQMEPanel QMELabor Code section 4062.2(c)Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a)WCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)
References
3
Case No. ADJ8381652
Regular
Feb 07, 2014

CARLOS CABRERA RAZO vs. LAS POSAS COUNTRY CLUB, HARTFORD INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns the timeliness of an applicant's strike from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The Appeals Board vacated its previous grant of reconsideration, dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, and denied their Petition for Removal. The Board determined that Labor Code section 4062.2, as amended by SB 863 effective January 1, 2013, applies to pending matters, including this case with a 2012 date of injury. Applying the amended statute and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a), the applicant had 15 days from the Administrative Director's assignment of the QME panel to strike a name. The applicant's strike on the 12th day was therefore timely, affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 4062.2(c)Senate Bill 863Administrative DirectorCumulative Trauma InjuryQME Panel AssignmentCode of Civil Procedure 1013
References
6
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. ADJ7676894 ADJ7676896
Regular
Nov 27, 2012

MARIA CORTEZ vs. PPG INDUSTRIES, YORK INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by a lien claimant that was dismissed as untimely. The administrative law judge's report, which the Board adopted, found the petition was filed more than 25 days after the August 30, 2012, order. This exceeds the statutory 20-day deadline plus the additional 5 days for mailing allowed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for failing to meet the procedural filing requirements.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Report and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
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
Showing 1-10 of 7,739 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