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. ADJ3545497 (VNO 0549348) ADJ2475197 (VNO 0402476) ADJ4294865 (VNO 0435139)
Regular
Jan 06, 2016

HUMBERTO ZUNIGA vs. BALFAB MANUFACTURING COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The petition was dismissed for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, but rather an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The petition was also denied for removal as it was unverified, and the petitioner failed to cure the defect or provide a valid explanation after notice. Therefore, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied the petition for removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory Procedural OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueVerified PetitionWCJ ReportDismissal
References
6
Case No. ADJ10023505
Regular
Aug 19, 2019

CESAR RODRIGUEZ vs. GREEN DENTAL AND ORTHODONTICS, TRAVELERS/THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the challenged order, a "Replacement QME Panel" decision, was not a final order as required by Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903. The WCAB also denied the alternative Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would justify this extraordinary remedy. Although the WCAB found the petition timely despite defective service by the defendant, the substantive issues did not warrant reconsideration or removal. Therefore, both the Petition for Reconsideration and the Petition for Removal were dismissed and denied, respectively.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionThreshold IssueSubstantive RightSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ8316615
Regular
Aug 09, 2018

ROYZELL WHITE vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified, and the defect was not cured despite notice. Furthermore, the WCAB would have dismissed the petition even if verified, as it sought reconsideration of a non-final procedural order. The lien claimant's Petition for Removal was also denied as it failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The original order denying the lien claimant's petition was issued without prejudice, allowing proper service and further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-IBR medical-legal disputeLien claimantVerificationFinal orderInterlocutory decisionWCJEAMS
References
9
Case No. ADJ9876334
Regular
Dec 12, 2017

ERIC DOZIER vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Kaiser Permanente's petition for reconsideration because the order they sought to appeal was not a final order. They also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board further clarified that the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely due to a defective service designation on the original Order Approving Compromise and Release. Finally, the WCJ acted within their authority to rescind the Order Approving Compromise and Release after a timely reconsideration petition was filed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOACRDefective Service
References
6
Case No. ADJ11099310
Regular
Mar 19, 2018

TYLER SANCHEZ vs. THE JACMAR COMPANIES dba SHAKEY'S PIZZA; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order denying a change of venue was not a final order, and thus not subject to reconsideration. The Petition for Removal was denied because the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the defendant's failure to file a proof of service with its initial petition and its failure to serve the applicant on the venue change request were grounds for denial. Even with a late submission of proof of service, the failure to serve the applicant on the venue change petition was a fatal defect.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalChange of VenueProof of ServiceLabor Code Section 5501.5(c)WCAB Rule 10450(f)Non-final OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ10344600
Regular
Aug 02, 2018

LUCIA GRADINARIU vs. FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., BERKLEY NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration and removal. The WCAB found that the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the December 28, 2016 Findings and Orders was procedurally defective as it was unverified and lacked proper proof of service. The Board also determined that the applicant's petition challenging the subsequent Order Taking Off Calendar was an attempt to seek reconsideration of an interlocutory order, which is improper. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from the interlocutory order.

AOE/COEPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Taking Off CalendarFindings and OrdersSubstantial Medical EvidenceUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceCumulative InjuryDate of Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ852406
Regular
Feb 24, 2015

TOK SUN SONG vs. CAFE PRINCE aka HWANG TAEJA, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses Tok Sun Song's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal is based on two grounds: the petition was filed untimely, exceeding the statutory 25-day limit after the WCJ's decision. Additionally, the petition was not verified, and the applicant failed to cure this defect or provide a valid explanation within a reasonable time after notice. As these are jurisdictional defects, the Board lacked authority to consider the untimely and unverified petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitVerification DefectCuring DefectsWCAB Rule 10508Labor Code 5900Labor Code 5903Labor Code 5902Cal. Code Regs. 10507
References
5
Case No. ADJ358912 (GRO 0032620) ADJ1583814 (GRO 0032621)
Regular
Jun 21, 2010

ROSS COVELLO vs. CITY OF SANTA MARIA, Pecmissibly Self-Insured, GREGORY BRAGG & ASSOCIATES, Adjusting Agency

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the PWCJ's order setting the matter for trial was not a final order. The Board denied the applicant's request for removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. Additionally, the petition for disqualification was denied due to the applicant's failure to provide the required affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury. The applicant's contentions regarding discovery, notice defects, counsel conflicts, and bias were found insufficient to warrant reconsideration or removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDeclaration of ReadinessAgreed Medical ExaminerDiscovery ClosedMandatory Settlement ConferenceFinal Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ9937224, ADJ9937229
Regular
Feb 28, 2023

BAUDILIO LOPEZ CANSINOS vs. A PHO 21, INC., JOHN CHO, ANGIE CHO, SAMUEL CHO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was not filed within the statutory timeframe and challenged non-final interlocutory orders. The Board treated the petition as one for removal, which was also dismissed as untimely. Despite finding defective service of prior orders, the petition for removal was still considered late based on the petitioner's own acknowledgment of service.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderService of ProcessUntimely PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdjudication NumbersSubstantial ShareholdersPWCJ Report
References
6
Case No. ADJ3755232
Regular
Jan 11, 2016

ABDUL AKHGAR aka AKHMADMIR ABDULMIR vs. MED-PHARMEX, INC., EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and Removal was dismissed for multiple procedural defects. Specifically, the petition failed to identify the order being challenged, lacked grounds, supporting evidence, and legal citations. Furthermore, the petition was unverified and did not demonstrate irreparable harm or prejudice, rendering it skeletal and insufficient for either reconsideration or removal. The Board also reminded parties of their service and property disclosure duties.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalskeletal petitionunverified petitionfinal ordersubstantive rightthreshold issueirreparable harmsubstantial prejudiceinterlocutory decision
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 14,595 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