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. ADJ8766821
Regular
Oct 03, 2016

PARAMJIT KAINTH vs. KEVIN'S PAINTING AND CONSTRUCTION, a partnership, KEVIN SINGH aka KULDIP SINGH, SEE SINGH, DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves defendants Kevin's Painting and Construction and Kevin Singh seeking reconsideration of a prior dismissal of their petition. The Board dismissed the current petition as an impermissible successive filing. Previously, their initial petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed 13 days late, and they failed to diligently order transcripts needed for their appeal. Even if not successive, the current petition would be denied on its merits for the same reasons of untimeliness and lack of diligence.

Successive petitionPetition for reconsiderationUntimely filingDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardTranscript request delayDiligenceLabor Code § 5903California Code of Regulations § 10859Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund
References
Case No. ADJ1194116 (LAO 0797672)
Regular
Jul 14, 2010

DONNA ORTIZ vs. CROWN TOYOTA, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS GROUP

This case involves a $750 sanction jointly imposed against Daniel Escamilla and Legal Service Bureau for filing a petition for reconsideration without proper diligence. The Appeals Board found that Mr. Escamilla failed to review crucial case documents, including typed minutes of hearing, leading to inaccurate assertions. This lack of diligence wasted judicial resources, although the sanction was reduced due to the possibility the petition was filed without actual knowledge of the falsehoods. The Board cited Mr. Escamilla's history of sanctions in determining the final amount.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionDaniel EscamillaLegal Service BureauPetition for ReconsiderationIgnorance of True FactsMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceDiligenceJudicial Resources
References
Case No. ADJ3390481, ADJ4560133
Regular
Mar 11, 2019

GILDARDO PATINO vs. State Compensation Insurance Fund, Arrowood Indemnity Company

This case concerns the applicant's workers' compensation claims and the defendants' failure to depose a key medical expert before his death. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendants' petitions for removal and denied their petitions for reconsideration. The WCAB found that the defendants did not demonstrate due diligence in scheduling the expert's deposition after the WCJ granted further discovery. Therefore, the WCAB upheld the WCJ's finding that the defendants failed to exercise due diligence.

WCABGildardo PatinoApplicantIndustrial InjuryPsycheGroinInternal SystemUrological SystemTeethExtremities
References
Case No. ADJ2519091 (LAO 0824930) ADJ4160066 (LAO 0824931) ADJ188382 (LAO 0828971)
Regular
Aug 18, 1941

MARIA MARXUACH vs. WESTIN BONAVENTURE HOTEL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration in this case, upholding the judge's decision. Discovery closed by operation of law on September 12, 2007, and the applicant's attorneys failed to demonstrate due diligence in listing crucial medical reports as exhibits prior to this closure. Despite numerous continuances and attempts to amend the exhibit list, discovery was never formally reopened. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that the applicant did not establish why the exhibits could not have been presented with reasonable diligence before discovery closed.

Mandatory Settlement ConferencePre-trial conference statementdiscovery closureadministrative law judgePetition for Reconsiderationreopen discoverydue diligenceexhibition listWCJ reportWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ9549383
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

JUANA ZELEDON DE TREMINIO vs. ESPOSTOS FINE FOODS INC. dba BOX LUNCH CO.

The defendant sought removal of the WCJ's orders to reopen discovery and take the case off calendar, arguing the applicant lacked due diligence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's minute orders, and returned the case for trial without further discovery. The Board found the WCJ erred by taking the case off calendar and reopening discovery before trial, as there was no established record of deficient medical reports to justify such actions. The question of due diligence and substantial evidence should be determined based on admitted evidence at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMinute OrdersReopening DiscoveryOff CalendarDue DiligencePrejudicialIrreparably HarmfulMedical Provider Network (MPN)Continuity of Care
References
Case No. ADJ1439326
Regular
Feb 03, 2014

BENEDICTO DORDINES vs. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Defendant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB found the petition was subject to dismissal because it was not verified, violating WCAB Rule 10843(b). Furthermore, the WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report, which concluded the Defendant failed to demonstrate due diligence in completing discovery. This lack of diligence was the basis for the judge's decision to set the case for trial, which the WCAB found did not warrant removal. Both defense and applicant's attorneys were admonished for failing to include their State Bar numbers.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalDENYunverifiedWCAB Rule 10843(b)State Bar numberWCAB Rule 10498interlocutory ordersubstantial prejudiceirrefutable harm
References
Case No. ADJ10591383
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

RUSSELL MITCHELL (Deceased); JEANNETE MITCHELL (Dependent) vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Los Angeles' petition for reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release agreement for a dependency claim. The city argued the agreement was based on a mistake of fact regarding the date of injury, leading to an incorrect settlement amount. However, the Board found the city failed to demonstrate a valid legal basis for reconsideration, citing the parties' failure to exercise due diligence in drafting and reviewing the agreement. The Board concluded that the alleged mistake was unilateral and attributable to the defendant's lack of diligence.

Compromise and ReleaseDependency ClaimOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationMistake of FactDate of Industrial InjuryDeath BenefitBurial ExpensesDisability Evaluation UnitOrder Suspending Action
References
Case No. ADJ7550460
Regular
Oct 12, 2015

MILAGROS ARBILDO vs. COUNTRY VILLA NOVATO HEALTH SERVICES, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant regarding the closure of discovery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied removal, adopting the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report. The WCJ found the defendant lacked diligence in scheduling the deposition of Dr. Mays, a key medical evaluator, delaying it for four months after receiving his report. The WCAB concluded that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy for the defendant if aggrieved by a final decision.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJRemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationFinal DecisionAggrievedStipulations
References
Case No. ADJ10204256
Regular
May 16, 2017

KEVIN SMITH vs. CC GLASS, CLARK CONSTRUCTION, ZURICH LOS ANGELES for CLARK CONSTRUCTION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration in the case of *Kevin Smith v. CC Glass (special employer) and Clark Construction (general employer)*. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, finding that the defendant failed to diligently pursue discovery, particularly by attempting to depose Dr. Greenspan for the first time at trial. The defendant also did not provide evidence that industrial causation was an issue presented to Dr. Greenspan for his supplemental report. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

WCABPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensationadministrative law judgeLabor Code section 5502(c)discoverydepositionDr. Greenspantrialpriority conference
References
Case No. ADJ2523054 (POM 2523054) ADJ8607480 ADJ9435881
Regular
Feb 18, 2020

JOSE SALAZAR vs. JAMES JONES COMPANY, INC.; MUELLER GROUP C/O SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior administrative law judge's decision. The Board held that the applicant failed to demonstrate extrinsic fraud or mistake to set aside a 2004 stipulated award, as the petition was filed over fifteen years after the award, well beyond the five-year statutory limit. The applicant's claim of not understanding the settlement documents, even if accepted, did not show he was prevented from presenting his case or that he diligently pursued relief. Therefore, the applicant's petition to set aside the stipulated award was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpetition for reconsiderationextrinsic fraudstipulated awardset asideLabor Code section 5803Labor Code section 5804five-year periodgood causeequitable relief
References
Showing 1-10 of 209 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