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. ADJ7313891
Regular
Nov 02, 2016

WAHEED KESMATYAR vs. SAVEMART SUPERMARKETS/FOODMAXX

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that dismissed his case and denied him benefits. He argued he was denied due process due to his incarceration and lack of notice, and that proper procedure was not followed. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the Workers' Compensation Judge's reasoning that the applicant's petition to set aside the dismissal was untimely and his claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Appeals Board also noted that while incarceration was raised, other procedural and substantive arguments were not sufficiently demonstrated to warrant overturning the original decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionsSlip and FallDismissal OrderStatute of LimitationsDenied Due ProcessIncarceratedSet Aside DismissalGood CauseImproper Service
References
Case No. ADJ7777181
Regular
Sep 26, 2012

GELMER ARRIAZA vs. CHUALAR PALLETS RECYCLE, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, citing that interlocutory procedural decisions do not determine substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, adopting the Workers' Compensation Judge's report and finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Additionally, the WCAB admonished the applicant's attorney for failing to include his State Bar number. Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory DecisionRemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmState Bar NumberRules of Court Administrator
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. ADJ3546267 (LBO 0364744)
Regular
Apr 02, 2013

JOSE ZAVALA vs. CAL-STATE AUTO PARTS, INC., AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA

This order from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismisses Applicant Jose Zavala's Petition for Reconsideration and denies removal. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning from the workers' compensation administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the petition is dismissed, and removal is denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENY REMOVALADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGEREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONDISMISSEDDENIEDADJ3546267LBO 0364744CAL-STATE AUTO PARTS
References
Case No. ADJ6834203
Regular
Dec 05, 2013

ROGELIO AVILA vs. EXPRESS SERVICES GROUP, LLC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of an order dismissing Rogelio Avila's case for lack of prosecution. The WCJ issued an intent to dismiss after Avila and his counsel failed to respond to notices and a dismissal petition, despite the admitted industrial injury to his knee. The majority found no good cause to set aside the dismissal. However, one commissioner dissented, arguing for granting reconsideration to allow the case to proceed on its merits, emphasizing the policy favoring substantial justice and the minimal prejudice to the defendant.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalLack of ProsecutionNotice of Intent to DismissIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityTreating PhysicianAppeals Board Rule 10582Pre-dismissal LetterGood Cause
References
Case No. ADJ1173558
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

CLORIA SAMAYOA vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was taken from a non-final interlocutory order, not a final decision determining substantive rights. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, adopting the Administrative Law Judge's reasoning that no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was demonstrated. The underlying issue involved an order rescinding the dismissal of a lien claimant's lien, which the defendant sought to overturn. The Board found that rescinding the dismissal was necessary to allow the defendant to pursue their petition for costs and sanctions against the lien claimant.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsRemoval DeniedReconsideration Dismissed
References
Case No. ADJ7330565 ADJ7330566
Regular
Dec 03, 2012

MICHAEL ACOSTA vs. M.S. ROUSE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities, but rather from interlocutory procedural orders. The petition for removal was also denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed, and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrdersProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsRemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ7733498
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

MINOO DANESHRAD vs. NESSAH EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL CENTER, TOWER GROUP COMPANIES

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by an applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order, which does not determine substantive rights. The petition for removal was denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, as required by regulation. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and removal were dismissed and denied, respectively.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrdersProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsRemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ8314506
Regular
May 05, 2015

OH SOON YU vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IHSS, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal and rescinded the prior order denying dismissal. The Board found the applicant's attorney had failed to demonstrate contact with the applicant or compliance with discovery orders for two years. The case is returned to the trial level for a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, unless the applicant clearly indicates intent to proceed. Failure to show good cause will result in dismissal.

Petition for RemovalOrder Denying Petition for Dismissallack of prosecutionApplication for Adjudication of Claimin home support service workerindustrial injurydenieddiscovery ordersNotice of Intention to Dismiss Applicationlien claimant
References
Case No. ADJ4391713 (MON 0354049)
Regular
Jul 19, 2012

JANET BALDONADO vs. KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by several lien claimants whose liens were dismissed with prejudice by a workers' compensation judge. The lien claimants failed to appear at a scheduled lien trial. The judge dismissed the liens for failure to appear and later found that the lien claimants' objections, citing clerical error and a request for the judge to call their representative, did not constitute good cause for reinstatement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, upholding the dismissal of the liens.

WCABLien ClaimantsDismissal with PrejudiceStipulations with Request for AwardCumulative Industrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityLien TrialNotice of Intention to Dismiss Liens10 Day NOIFailure to Appear
References
Showing 1-10 of 10,025 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