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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ7255629, ADJ7258202
Regular
Apr 23, 2013

ROMALDA MERCADO vs. CM LAUNDRY, LLC, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES for CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a July 18, 2012 decision. The dismissal is based on the petitioner's withdrawal of the petition. Furthermore, the Board notes that the petition was likely untimely and defective, as indicated in the administrative law judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissing PetitionUntimely PetitionDefective PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge's ReportCase NumbersApplicantDefendantsWithdrawal of Petition
References
Case No. ADJ10793351
Regular
Sep 23, 2019

PHILLIP PUCCIARELLO vs. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, permissibly self-insured dba ALLIED, UNIVERSAL SECURITY, ESIS CHATSWORTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying dismissal was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted the defendant's petition for removal. The WCAB found the defendant's initial notice of intent to dismiss was properly served and rescinded the WCJ's denial of dismissal. The matter was returned to the WCJ to issue a ten-day notice of intention to dismiss for failure to prosecute, as defendant's independent investigation of mail delivery was improper.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10582Petition to DismissFailure to ProsecuteOrder Denying Petition for DismissalApplicantDefendantAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ6705977 ADJ6880053
Regular
Jun 13, 2014

TERRI SIEGEL vs. WALGREENS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's untimely petition for removal, finding it lacked merit and was frivolous. The Board noted the petition was filed months after the subject orders, violating the 20-day filing deadline. Additionally, the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be inadequate. Consequently, the Board intends to impose sanctions of up to $1,000 on the defendant for filing a baseless petition.

Petition for RemovalUntimely PetitionOrder Vacating SubmissionOrder Taking Off CalendarReport and RecommendationSanctionsFrivolous PetitionLabor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Significant Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ10190746 ADJ10190618
Regular
Aug 24, 2018

JOSE CARDENAS vs. A&M PROPERTIES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST GROUP

In *Cardenas v. A&M Properties*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a defendant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB found the petition deficient because it was unsigned and unverified, violating WCAB rules. Furthermore, the accompanying proof of service was also unsigned, which is a valid ground for summary dismissal. Consequently, the WCAB ordered the Petition for Removal dismissed.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10843(b)WCAB Rule 10450(e)WCAB Rule 10450(f)WCAB Rule 10850unsigned petitionunverified petitionproof of servicesummarily dismissingoff calendar
References
Case No. ADJ 8560911
Regular
May 02, 2016

TIM MCDONALD vs. SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, TIG SPECIALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the original award of 73% permanent disability and attorney fees. The Board determined that the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, not an older schedule, should be used for rating the applicant's cumulative trauma injury claim filed in 2012. The case is returned to the trial level for a new determination of permanent disability using the 2005 schedule, affirming findings on injury and medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Francisco 49ersTIG Specialty Companyindustrial injuryprofessional athletefootball playerstrong safetycumulative traumapermanent disabilityapportionment
References
Case No. ADJ2345295
Regular
Aug 26, 2010

JOSEPHINE RICHAU vs. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, INSURANCE CORPORATION OF HANNOVER by MIDLANDS CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding supplemental attorney's fees. The defendant sought to overturn an award of $3,120.00 in fees and $297.66 in costs to the applicant's attorney. However, the applicant's attorney confirmed that these fees had already been paid and no further payment was sought. Therefore, the defendant's petition was rendered moot, as the original award, issued under Labor Code section 5801 due to an unreasonable petition for writ of review by the defendant, was satisfied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Attorney's FeesReconsiderationPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code Section 5801Total Permanent DisabilityMethicillin Resistant Staphylococcus AureusIndustrial InjurySpine InjurySpecial Education Teacher
References
Case No. ADJ7019304
Regular
Aug 19, 2013

JOSE LOPEZ vs. CALABEE'S INC., PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Jose Lopez's Petition for Reconsideration due to several procedural and substantive deficiencies. The petition was a "skeletal petition" lacking specific references to the record or legal grounds as required by law. Furthermore, the applicant failed to properly serve the petition on the defendant insurance company. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition for failing to comply with the California Labor Code and WCAB regulations.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissing PetitionOrder Dismissing ApplicationSkeletal PetitionLabor Code section 5902California Code of Regulations title 8 section 10846California Code of Regulations title 8 section 10842Failure to ServeProof of Service
References
Case No. ADJ6685001
Regular
Jun 07, 2011

RAQUEL CECENA vs. SEARS TOPANGA PLAZA, SEDGWICK CMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal because it was untimely, filed thirty days after the order when the deadline was twenty days. Additionally, the petition was not verified as required by WCAB rules. The Board further noted that even if considered on the merits, the petition would have been denied based on the WCJ's report. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for procedural deficiencies.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionUntimely PetitionWCAB Rule 10843(a)WCAB Rule 10843(b)Due Process RightsPrematurely Closing DiscoveryMedical IssuesWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeReport and Recommendation on Removal
References
Showing 1-10 of 14,644 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