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. ADJ7626540, ADJ7626544
Regular
Oct 17, 2013

EFRAIN CERVANTES vs. EXCEL CONSTRUCTION, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's dismissal of Preferred Scan's lien. Although Preferred Scan paid its lien activation fee on the morning of the lien conference, the WCJ dismissed the lien due to no proof of payment being available at the conference. The Board found the payment timely and the EAMS system's delayed reflection of payment not Preferred Scan's fault. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including potential dismissal notice or sanctions for the failure to appear.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien Activation FeePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienDue ProcessLabor Code Section 4903.06Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Lien ConferenceSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813
References
0
Case No. ADJ1821372 (OAK 0348608) ADJ3501870 (OAK 0348014)
Regular
Dec 15, 2010

NOEL SMITH vs. ALLIED BARTON SECURITY SERVICES, ESIS CONTINUING SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Noel Smith's petition for reconsideration of a previous finding that she did not sustain industrial injuries on January 13 and 30, 2008. The petition was dismissed because it was untimely filed with the WCAB. Specifically, the petition was received and scanned into EAMS on October 29, 2010, well past the September 20, 2010 deadline, and it was not properly served. Even if it had been timely, the WCAB would have denied it on the merits based on the WCJ's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5900(a)Labor Code Section 5909Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Due ProcessCode of Civil Procedure Section 1013WCAB Rule 10507
References
7
Case No. ADJ2798585 (MON 0241152) ADJ2723676 (MON 0241153)
Regular
Sep 21, 2011

MAXINE WIGGS vs. ALLIED SIGNAL AEROSPACE, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURANCE

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant challenging the setting of a status conference based on an allegedly improper Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to Expedited Hearing. The defendant argued the expedited hearing was requested for unauthorized surgery, which was a violation of policy. However, the defendant later conceded the surgical consult had been authorized, rendering their petition moot. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as moot and also noted an unacceptable delay in scanning case documents into EAMS.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed to Expedited HearingPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeStatus ConferenceExpedited HearingMedical TreatmentSurgical ConsultMoot PetitionEAMS
References
1
Case No. ADJ1773429 (MON 0282203) ADJ855226 (MON 0077581) ADJ2715287 (MON 0077582)
Regular
Nov 19, 2013

CURTIS WARD vs. TECHNICOLOR, INC.

This case involves a sanction imposed against applicant's attorney, Leatrice L. Cohen, for violating Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Rules. The Board found Ms. Cohen's attachment of over 300 pages of documents to a petition for removal to be improper, as Board Rule 10842(c) prohibits attaching exhibits. Her defense that some documents were not scanned into EAMS was rejected, as the rule prohibits attaching documents already present in the record. Consequently, the Board ordered Ms. Cohen to pay a $900 sanction to the General Fund.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRemovalSanctionLabor Code section 5813Rules of Practice and ProcedurePetition for removalAppeals Board Rule 10842(c)ExhibitsEAMSFrivolous tactics
References
0
Case No. ADJ3157778 (SBR 0342745)
Regular
Aug 26, 2011

Carrita Morales vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's untimely Petition for Removal due to its late filing. However, the WCAB granted removal on its own motion, citing significant procedural and record-keeping deficiencies. These included a lack of scanned documents in the EAMS system, applicant's waiver of objections to proceeding to trial, and the absence of a proper pretrial conference statement and exhibits. The case was rescinded from the WCJ's order and returned to the trial level for a Mandatory Settlement Conference and further proceedings to establish a complete record.

Petition for RemovalDismissalGranting RemovalOwn Motion RemovalDecision After RemovalWCJDiscovery ReopenedSleep ReportInsomniaPermanent and Stationary
References
2
Case No. ADJ7611909 ADJ8870925
Regular
Jan 20, 2016

ANTONIA RIVAS vs. EL PRADO RESTAURANT, THE COHEN RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board reversed the prior decision, allowing lien claimant Preferred Scan's exhibits into evidence. Applying the en banc decision in *Cornejo*, the Board found that Preferred Scan made an unrebutted prima facie showing of exemption from Business and Professions Code registration requirements. This exemption applies because Preferred Scan acted as an agent or independent contractor for applicant's attorney, a member of the State Bar. The case is returned for a new decision on the lien claim.

Preferred ScanRivas v. El Prado RestaurantADJ7611909ADJ8870925WCABReconsiderationBusiness and Professions Code 22450Business and Professions Code 22451(b)Cornejo v. Younique CaféInc.
References
1
Case No. ADJ6949691
Regular
Sep 05, 2013

GUADALUPE MONTES, GUADALUPE MONTES-GARCIA vs. CITIZEN DEVELOPMENT CORP.; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by True Scan Legal Copy Service, a lien claimant. The petition was denied because it was not verified under oath as required by Labor Code section 5902. Furthermore, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found that True Scan had sufficient notice of the lien conference and failed to pay its lien activation fee. Therefore, the lien was properly dismissed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5902Lien ClaimantLien ConferenceActivation FeeEAMS SystemNotice of HearingDismissalAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ7552656
Regular
Dec 07, 2017

JOSE HERNANDEZ vs. MONTY'S PRIME STEAK AND SEAFOOD, SEQUOIA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding that the statutory time limit to act on the petition was tolled due to administrative delays in receiving the petition from the district office. Although the defendant claimed to have uploaded a Notice of Hearing into EAMS, this document was not visible to the Board at the time of their review. The Board remanded the case to the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge for a hearing to resolve disputes regarding the notice and its upload into EAMS.

EAMSPetition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessTollingNotice of HearingWCJ ReportLien DismissalRemandStipulationAdjudication Management System
References
1
Case No. ADJ2217160
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

ALICIA NEGRETE vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendants' petition for reconsideration because a crucial document, their First Amended Petition for Penalties, was missing from the EAMS record. This missing petition was referenced in their petition for reconsideration and is essential for a complete understanding of the case. The Board will dismiss the defendants' petition for reconsideration unless they provide a copy of the referenced document within 15 days. All future filings must be sent directly to the Appeals Board Commissioners' office, not district offices or EAMS.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationFirst Amended Petition for PenaltiesCosts and SanctionsEAMSNotice of Intention to DismissAdmitted EvidenceStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesDecision After Reconsideration
References
2
Case No. ADJ10227826
Regular
Mar 02, 2020

CARMEN PINEDA vs. MISSION FOODS (GRUMA CORPORATION), ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the applicant's petition because of discrepancies regarding its timely filing. While the applicant's attorney signed the petition on December 30, 2019, and the EAMS filing date shows December 31, 2019, the applicant must provide definitive proof of filing on December 30, 2019. Failure to provide this proof, including an EAMS Batch ID, will result in the petition being dismissed as untimely. The Board is issuing an Order to Show Cause why the petition should not be dismissed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationEAMSFiling DateTimelinessElectronic FilingBatch IDProof of ServiceReconsideration GrantedNotice of Intention to Dismiss
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 131 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