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. 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. ADJ3882107
Regular
Oct 04, 2012

PETER ARCARESE vs. LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL H. MILLER, STATE FARM CALIFORNIA, WC CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Peter Arcarese's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The petition was also dismissed as consecutive, attempting to relitigate issues previously addressed after a prior dismissal. Furthermore, the request for removal was denied as Arcarese failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderDismissed PetitionPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedyWrit of Review
References
Case No. ADJ3505181 (POM 0262203)
Regular
Mar 26, 2019

DANIEL HERRERA vs. ROBERT HARMAN & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, MCKELVEY, BELLWOOD LAUNDRY & LINEN, CROTHALL LAUNDRY SERVICE; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an order dismissing the applicant's case for lack of prosecution. The dismissal occurred because the applicant's objection to the dismissal petition was allegedly not properly filed with the EAMS system, despite being mailed to the District Office. The WCAB found sufficient evidence in the applicant's petition and supporting documents to warrant a hearing on the merits of the dismissal. The case is returned to the trial level for the judge to set a hearing and consider the dismissal petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CaseLack of ProsecutionEAMSPetition for Dismissal for Lack of Diligent ProsecutionNotice of Intention to DismissObjection to DismissalRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
Case No. LAO 0846328
Regular
Jun 30, 2008

RINDA Q. GARCIA vs. ALBERTSONS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order dismissing the applicant's case for lack of prosecution. The dismissal was improper because the defendant failed to comply with procedural requirements, including serving notice on all lien claimants and providing proof of direct communication with the applicant. The case is returned to the trial judge for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of Dismissal for Lack of ProsecutionApplication for AdjudicationIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryRight Upper Extremity InjuryRight Lower Extremity InjuryPetition to DismissAbandonmentLoss of Contact
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. ADJ9191048, ADJ9191050
Regular
Jul 18, 2016

TERRANCE MARTINEZ vs. MK ROOFING, INC., STATE COMPESNATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration to set aside an Order of Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution. The dismissal was problematic because the defendant's notice letter was sent over sixteen months prior to the dismissal petition, and the applicant's counsel claims never to have received the dismissal petition itself, thus denying due process. Furthermore, a motion for the applicant's attorney to withdraw was pending at the time of dismissal. The Board rescinded the dismissal order and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings, emphasizing the public policy favoring hearing cases on their merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder of Dismissal for Lack of ProsecutionPetition for ReconsiderationWCJNotice of IntentionPetition for DismissalWCAB Rule 10582NoticeOpportunity to be heardApplicant's attorney
References
Case No. ADJ9785760
Regular
Jan 17, 2017

MARGARITO SANDOVAL vs. RECANA, LLC, UNINSURED; NINA'S MEXICAN FOOD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding it was improperly filed against an order that was not a final determination. The WCAB also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, deeming it an extraordinary remedy not warranted by the circumstances. The WCJ had properly vacated an order of dismissal without prejudice, retaining jurisdiction and allowing the applicant to pursue their claim. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating Order of DismissalDismissal without prejudicePetition for Dismissal for Lack of ProsecutionNotice of Intention to DismissLabor Code section 5410Labor Code section 5803substantial justiceextraordinary remedy
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. ADJ1044769 (SJO 0202779)
Regular
Jun 21, 2013

ANH NGOC NGUYEN vs. ISOLA U.S.A. and FIREMAN'S FUND

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration filed by Golden State Diagnostic regarding a dismissed lien claim due to an unpaid activation fee. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition, finding it procedurally deficient for being unverified, skeletal, and single-spaced. The WCAB noted that even if considered on its merits, the petition would have been denied based on the WCJ's reasoning. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien Claim DismissalLien Activation FeeUnverified PetitionSkeletal PetitionClerical ErrorLabor Code Section 5902WCAB Rule 10846Lucena v. Diablo Auto Body
References
Case No. ADJ11276421
Regular
Mar 15, 2019

SABAS GAMBOA vs. FULLERTON PACIFIC INTERIORS, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order dismissing defendant Clark Builders and others, arguing it was improper as Clark Builders was not a party. The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely and from a non-final order. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion to correct the record, as Clark Builders was never properly a party. The Board rescinded the original dismissal order and issued a new order dismissing Arch Indemnity Insurance Company and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. without prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalOrder DismissingLack of EmploymentClark BuildersArch Indemnity Insurance CompanyGallagher Bassett ServicesInc.Fullerton Pacific Interiors
References
Showing 1-10 of 13,651 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