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. ADJ8005489
Regular
May 30, 2013

CLAUDIA MONTOYA vs. AGE ADVANTAGE HCS, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claim filed by Firstline Health. The lien was dismissed because Firstline failed to pay the required lien activation fee and did not appear at the lien conference. Although Firstline claimed an oral settlement agreement existed, the evidence presented was a settlement demand, not a finalized agreement. The Board upheld the dismissal, finding Firstline violated Labor Code Section 4903.06.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLien ClaimantLien Activation FeeLabor Code § 4903.06Dismissal with PrejudiceCompromise and ReleaseOral AgreementLien Claimant Demand Letter
References
Case No. ADJ2912747 (AHM 0106971)
Regular
May 23, 2014

JOSE MANUEL OCHOA vs. CHECKMATE STAFFING, ZENITH INSURANCE, FRONTIER MEDICAL, INC., N-CARE, LLC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimants Frontier Medical and N-Care, reversing a prior dismissal. The liens were dismissed because their representative, Pinnacle Lien Services, failed to file required letters of representation under Labor Code section 4903.6(b), rendering them unrepresented. Despite Pinnacle's claims of appearance and objection, the Board affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the representation letter for a hearing representative to act. Jurisdiction is reserved for potential sanctions against Pinnacle, Frontier, and N-Care.

Pinnacle Lien ServicesFrontier MedicalN-CareWCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LiensLabor Code section 4903.6(b)Hearing RepresentativeLetter of RepresentationLien Conference
References
Case No. ADJ10384152
Regular
Jul 26, 2019

VERONICA SOBERANIS vs. REGISTRATION INSURANCE SERVICES; AMTRUST

This case involves a dispute over whether applicant could provide nonmedical records to a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for removal. While the WCAB clarified that triers of fact *can* determine disputes regarding QME information, removal was denied as the applicant failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB noted that the applicant could still communicate her complaints directly to the QME during the examination.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorNonmedical RecordsDiscovery DisputesLabor Code Section 4062.3Suon v. California DairiesMaxham v. California Department of Corrections and RehabilitationEx Parte CommunicationApplicant's Letter
References
Case No. ADJ15763825
Regular
Sep 16, 2025

CLAUDIO CARDOZO vs. ROCK AND ROLL CAR WASH, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Redwood Fire and Casualty Insurance Company dba Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies. The petition challenged a lien trial decision concerning a medical-legal evaluation performed by Dr. Michaels of Premier Psychological Services. The WCJ found that a medical dispute regarding psyche existed at the time of the evaluation, Dr. Michaels was validly designated as the Primary Treating Physician, and the evaluation was not barred by the 60-day rule for new claims as it was an amendment to an already accepted claim. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning and denied the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5909Adjudication NumberOpinion and Order Denying PetitionWCJ ReportEAMS TransmissionNotice of TransmissionProof of ServiceFindings and Order
References
Case No. ADJ10337348 ADJ10295534
Regular
Apr 17, 2019

Joshua Horn vs. Walmart Stores, Inc., and Ace American Insurance Company administered by York Risk Services, Group, Inc.

Walmart sought to introduce evidence excluded by a WCJ's order, arguing prejudice due to a clerical error in serving the Board. The WCAB dismissed Walmart's "petition" because it was an unverified letter to the WCJ, not a properly filed petition for removal or reconsideration. The Board found no petition was properly before them and therefore dismissed it.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJundue prejudiceclerical errorpetition for reconsiderationunverified letterLabor Code § 5902documentary evidencepre-trial order
References
Case No. ADJ669236 (SAC 0346511)
Regular
Apr 20, 2012

LOREDANA ZECCA-VINCIGUERRA vs. CHARMING SHOPPES, INC., dba LANE BRYANT, INC.; GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration/Removal filed by Applicant Loredana Zecca-Vinciguerra. This dismissal was based on a joint letter from the parties indicating they had reached a settlement. The parties explicitly requested the WCAB take no action on the pending petition due to their agreement. The WCAB will allow refiling if their understanding of the settlement is incorrect.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalSettlementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJDismissalParties' LetterRe-filedApplicantDefendant
References
Case No. ADJ3861894 (LAO 0834261) ADJ2643996 (LAO 0864275)
Regular
Nov 17, 2008

MARIA DE LEON vs. LAUREL CANYON RETIREMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior order approving a compromise and release settlement, claiming a misunderstanding and subsequent medical deterioration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely, noting it was filed well beyond the statutory deadline. However, the Board remanded the case to the trial level for the applicant's letter to be considered as a petition to reopen and set aside the compromise and release.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationUntimely PetitionRescind OrderSet Aside OrderLabor Code Section 5903Jurisdictional Time LimitWCJReopen
References
Case No. ADJ9715211, ADJ7823437
Regular
Apr 13, 2015

OSCAR MILLAN vs. SKB CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Oscar Millan v. SKB Corporation. Although the petition was not in the proper format, it was deemed timely filed as an e-filed verified letter on January 30, 2015. The WCAB reviewed the merits of the petition, as stated in the judge's report, but ultimately found no grounds for reconsideration of the prior order. Therefore, the defendant's petition was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeJoint Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseElectronic Adjudication Management Systemtimely filedverified letterAmbika SapraSapra & Navarra LLP
References
Case No. ADJ3824996
Regular
Feb 06, 2015

OLIVIA AGUILAR vs. APPAREL VENTURES, INC., PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's petition for removal to reverse an order denying their petition for dismissal. The denial was based on the defendant's notice letter to the applicant not strictly adhering to the language required by WCAB Rule 10582. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning and denied the petition, finding the notice defective. One Commissioner dissented, arguing the minor language variation should not prevent dismissal, especially given the lack of applicant response.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10582DismissalNotice letterGood reasonAttorney timeAdministrative law judgeDissenting opinionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardVariance
References
Case No. ADJ886832 (VNO 0463817) ADJ7239162 ADJ7559804
Regular
Apr 17, 1977

MARGOT LOWE vs. SAV-ON DRUGS and SEDGWICK CMS, CVS and GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Appeals Board dismissed Sav-On Drugs' Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. This denial does not preclude Sav-On from raising its objections in a future petition for reconsideration of a final decision. The Board specifically noted that the disputed advocacy letter to the Agreed Medical Evaluator did not appear to affect the AME's findings.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenying RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderAgreed Medical EvaluatorAdvocacy LetterLabor Code Section 4062.3Substantial Prejudice
References
Showing 1-10 of 182 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