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. ADJ3712262 (AHM 0138707)
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

BRIAN HICKS vs. TENNESSEE TITANS, CAROLINA PANTHERS, et al.

This case involves a lien claimant, ACS Recovery Services, Inc., seeking reconsideration of a disallowance of its lien and denial of penalties. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed ACS's petition for reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. The WCJ's report highlighted this defect, and ACS failed to cure it or provide a compelling explanation within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition, noting it would have been denied on the merits otherwise.

ACS Recovery ServicesLien claimantPetition for reconsiderationVerified petitionLabor Code section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyDisallowancePenaltiesInterestWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ8686864
Regular
Dec 23, 2015

JOSE MOLLINEDO vs. STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, SPARTA INSURANCE, AMERICAN CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified. Labor Code section 5902 mandates verification, and precedent allows dismissal for unverified petitions that are not cured or adequately explained after notice. The applicant failed to cure the defect or provide a compelling reason for its absence within a reasonable time. Therefore, the Board dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerification defectLabor Code section 5902Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10450(e)Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyDismissalWCJ reportLien claimant
References
Case No. ADJ7583327
Regular
May 16, 2013

JORGE GRAIBE vs. CVS CAREMARK, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Jorge Graibe's petition for reconsideration against CVS Caremark and its insurer because the petition was unverified. Labor Code section 5902 requires verification, and despite notice of this defect and a reasonable opportunity to cure it, the petitioner failed to file a verification or provide a compelling explanation for its absence. The Board would have denied the petition on the merits as well, adopting the WCJ's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodySignificant Panel DecisionDefectCureCompelling reasonPrejudice
References
Case No. ADJ8752928
Regular
Feb 23, 2016

BRAD MITCHELL vs. MARILYN GREENBERG LOAN ACCOUNTS, AAA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSURANCE EXCHANGE, administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case is dismissed because the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was unverified, violating Labor Code section 5902 and related regulations. The Applicant was given notice of this defect and a reasonable time to cure it, but failed to do so. Additionally, the petition lacked the required proof of service. If not for the procedural defect, the petition would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionVerification RequirementLabor Code Section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodySignificant Panel DecisionWCJ ReportProof of ServiceLabor Code Section 5905Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ7445855
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

SANTIAGO URENA vs. APPLIED COMPANIES, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed 10 days after the deadline. The petition was also dismissed for failing to meet the statutory verification requirement and the claimant did not cure this defect within a reasonable time. The Board noted that even if timely and verified, the petition would have been denied on the merits.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyUnverifiedJurisdictionalWCJ's Order of Lien DismissalLabor Code Section 5902Verification defectNotice of defectReasonable time
References
Case No. ADJ1901636 (OXN 0142554)
Regular
Aug 09, 2018

STEWART BERNSTEIN vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision dismisses a Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified, which violates Labor Code section 5902. The petitioner was notified of this defect but failed to cure it by filing a verification or providing a compelling explanation within a reasonable time. Therefore, the Board is dismissing the petition. Had it not been for the procedural defect, the petition would have been denied on its merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionLabor Code Section 5902Verification RequirementLucena v. Diablo Auto BodyAdministrative Law JudgeDismissalCuring DefectCompelling Reason
References
Case No. VNO 0486889, POM 0279631
Regular
Jul 09, 2007

RICARDO RAMIREZ RODRIGUEZ vs. MEADOWBROOK DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. This defect was noted by the WCJ, and the lien claimant failed to cure it or provide a compelling explanation for its absence within a reasonable time. The Board also indicated that, even if considered, the petition would have been denied on its merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVerified PetitionLabor Code section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyWCJ's ReportLien ClaimantDismissalProcedural DefectCure Defect
References
Case No. ADJ10185039
Regular
Feb 23, 2017

GERARDO ARELLANOS TORRES vs. WE CARE RECYCLING ADMINISTRATION, LLC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a Petition for Removal due to a deficient record. The WCJ's denial of the defendant's petition to compel lacked a proper record and explanation. The Board rescinded the WCJ's prior order and returned the case for further proceedings. This action ensures all issues are adjudicated with adequate documentation and reasoned decisions as required by law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJRescind DecisionReturn to Trial LevelPetition to CompelLabor CodeStatement of ReasonsMinutes of HearingSummary of Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ8606678
Regular
Jan 26, 2017

SEFERINO ADRIAN LORENZO BAUTISTA vs. LANSFORD ROOFING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on the petition's failure to be verified, a mandatory requirement under Labor Code section 5902. Notice of this defect was provided by the workers' compensation administrative law judge. As the petitioner failed to cure the defect or provide a compelling explanation within a reasonable time, the petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionDismissalLabor Code Section 5902Verification RequirementWCJ ReportNotice of DefectCure DefectCompelling ReasonRespondent Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ1274234
Regular
Jun 23, 2015

YVONNE SAA vs. BODIES IN MOTION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Yvonne Saa's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Notice of this defect was given, and Saa failed to cure it by filing a verification or providing a compelling explanation within a reasonable time. The Board noted that even if not dismissed for lack of verification, the petition would have been denied on its merits according to the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerificationLabor Code section 5902Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10450(e)Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodySignificant Panel DecisionUnverified petitionDismissal
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,128 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