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. ADJ3011154 (SAC 0309784) ADJ3631113 (SAC 0309785)
Regular
Aug 28, 2014

CHRISTOPHER TORRES vs. CONTRA COSTA SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a dismissal of an applicant's Independent Medical Review (IMR) appeal, which was initially dismissed for lack of verification. While the applicant's IMR appeal did not meet the statutory requirement for verification under Labor Code section 4610.6(h), the WCAB recognized the evolving nature of this requirement and the public policy favoring disposition on the merits. The case was returned to the trial level, allowing the applicant twenty days to cure the verification defect, after which the WCJ will address the substance of the appeal or dismiss it if the defect remains uncorrected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewUtilization ReviewVerified AppealLabor Code Section 4610.6(h)Petition for ReconsiderationRule 10450(e)Declaration of Readiness to ProceedWCJSignificant Panel Decision
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Case No. MON 0114910
Regular
Oct 02, 2007

TEDDIE GRIFFIN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES - IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimants' Petition for Reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. The Board noted that even after the WCJ pointed out the defect, the lien claimants failed to cure the lack of verification. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory verification requirement.

LachesLabor Code section 4903.5PrejudiceLien claimantsCalifornia Psychiatric CenterNeuro-Electro DiagnosticPetition for ReconsiderationVerificationLabor Code section 5902Dismissal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klussman v. A.T. Reynolds & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael Klussman, a tractor-trailer driver, was injured while off-loading water bottles, leading to a lawsuit against the water distributor, Leisure Time, and the building occupant, Cure Connections. The Supreme Court initially denied Leisure Time's motion for summary judgment but granted Cure Connections'. On appeal, the decision was modified, with Leisure Time's motion for summary judgment being granted and the complaint against them dismissed. The appellate court determined that Klussman's chosen method of unloading, moving a heavy load at a faster speed down an incline, was the proximate cause of his injury, rather than any defective equipment provided by Leisure Time.

summary judgmentnegligencespecial employeeproximate causeworkers' compensation lawpallet jackloading dock accidentpersonal injuryappellate reviewduty of care
References
0
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
1
Case No. ADJ8231324
Regular
Jan 12, 2016

MARIA GUEVARA vs. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Maria Guevara's petition for reconsideration because it was unverified. Labor Code section 5902 mandates verification for such petitions. Guevara was notified of this defect, and despite a reasonable time passing, failed to cure it by filing a verification or providing a compelling explanation for its absence. Therefore, the WCAB dismissed the petition, noting it would have also been denied on the merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10450(e)Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyWCJ reportADJ8231324Unverified petitionNotice of defectCure defect
References
1
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
1
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
1
Case No. ADJ8857098
Regular
Mar 27, 2015

JOSE CARRANZA vs. G&K MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.; GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Jose Carranza's Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified, violating Labor Code section 5902. Carranza was provided notice of this defect and a reasonable time to cure it but failed to file a verification or provide a compelling explanation. Consequently, the Board found no grounds to excuse the lack of verification. The Board also indicated that had the petition not been dismissed procedurally, it would have been denied on the merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerification DefectLabor Code Section 5902Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10450(e)Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyDismissalAdministrative Law Judge ReportCure DefectCompelling ReasonRespondent Prejudice
References
1
Case No. ADJ9185550
Regular
Jul 01, 2018

VERONICA WADE vs. ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, YORK INSURANCE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Veronica Wade that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on the petition's lack of verification, a mandatory requirement under Labor Code section 5902. Despite having notice of this defect and ample time to cure it, the petitioner failed to file a verification or provide a compelling explanation. The Board noted that even if the petition had been properly verified, it would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionLabor Code Section 5902Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10450(e)Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyDismissal OrderWCJ ReportStipulated AwardGood CauseVerification Defect
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 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