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. ADJ9876582
Regular
Sep 05, 2018

MICHAEL NEGRETE vs. THERMAL STRUCTURES, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, which sought to overturn a trial setting order for a lien trial. The defendant argued the trial setting prejudiced them by not allowing discovery on the Labor Code section 4615 stay issue. The Board found the EAMS notation provided sufficient notice of the potential defense, making discovery feasible. Therefore, removal was denied as there was no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

Petition for RemovalLien TrialLabor Code Section 4615Stay of LiensReshealth Medical GroupTruCare PharmacyAbuse of DiscretionPrejudicial ErrorDiscoveryWCJ Report and Recommendation
References
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
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
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
Case No. ADJ4522362 (VNO 0399188) ADJ537923 (VNO 0548972)
Regular
Sep 21, 2009

CELESTE LILJEBLAND-THOMAS vs. BARONE'S RESTAURANT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's untimely vocational rehabilitation appeal. The WCJ had dismissed the appeal, finding it was filed late on May 4, 2009, rather than by the January 19, 2009 deadline. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the appeal's mailing date and subsequent processing by the Rehabilitation Unit, complicated by issues with the new Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS). Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision to clarify the circumstances of the appeal's filing and entry into EAMS.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRehabilitation UnitVocational Rehabilitation AppealTimelinessFindings and OrderReconsiderationState Compensation Insurance FundElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
Case No. ADJ3912308 (LBO 0367834)
Regular
Nov 16, 2012

LEOPOLDO SIMOTA vs. AMERICAN NURSERIES, VIRGINIA SURETY, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision to disallow the lien. The lien claimant argued they had submitted sufficient evidence via EAMS, but the Board clarified that filing in EAMS does not equate to submitting admissible evidence for evaluation. The Board emphasized that proper evidentiary procedures must be followed, citing due process and fundamental rules of evidence submission. Consequently, the lien claimant's failure to properly present evidence led to the denial of their petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantUniversity Imaging CenterPetition for ReconsiderationOrder denyingWCJEAMSsubmission of evidenceadmissibilitydue process
References
Case No. ADJ6726149
Significant
Mar 22, 2018

Pedro Hernandez vs. Henkel Loctite Corporation, Zurich American Ins. Co., administrated by Zurich North America/Los Angeles

The Appeals Board held that a lien claimant's declaration filed on Monday, July 3, 2017, was timely because the statutory deadline of July 1, 2017 fell on a Saturday, extending the deadline to the next business day. The defendant's Petition for Reconsideration was therefore denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEN BANCPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4903.05DeclarationTimely FilingEAMSDismissal NotationNext Business Day
References
Case No. ADJ6792217
Regular
Apr 24, 2018

CONSTANCIO LASCANO vs. SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a lien claimant, Resource Pharmacy, whose lien was dismissed by operation of law in EAMS due to a clerical error in listing the wrong lien reservation number. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal, finding that the issue of correcting the clerical error and removing the dismissal notation should first be addressed by a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). Lien claimants are entitled to due process, including a hearing to potentially set aside a dismissal based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). The Appeals Board emphasized the policy of favoring hearings on the merits and allowing parties a chance to correct errors.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantResource PharmacyElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Labor Code section 4903.05Lien Reservation Number (LRN)Clerical ErrorDismissal by Operation of LawWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Due Process
References
Case No. ADJ9637766
Regular
Apr 24, 2018

ERIKA CHAVEZ vs. WEST COAST WAREHOUSE, INC., HARTFORD INSURANCE

Here is a summary for a lawyer in four sentences: This case involves a lien claimant seeking to correct a clerical error in filing a declaration under Labor Code section 4903.05, which resulted in their lien being dismissed by operation of law in the EAMS system. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal, ruling that the issue of whether the lien claimant is entitled to correct the error and remove the dismissal notation should be determined by a Workers' Compensation Judge. The Board emphasized that lien claimants, like other parties, are entitled to due process, including a hearing on whether dismissal should be set aside due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. This ensures a hearing on the merits, consistent with the policy favoring the resolution of disputes on substantive grounds.

Labor Code section 4903.05Lien claimantPetition for RemovalDismissal by operation of lawClerical errorLien Reservation Number (LRN)Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Supplemental Lien FormCompromise and ReleaseDue process
References
Case No. ADJ3979004 (LAO 0862878) ADJ1142637 (LAO 0862879)
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

TERESA RAMOS vs. KDK INVESTMENT, INC., CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order dismissing a lien claim for failure to pay a lien activation fee. The lien claimant presented evidence of an EAMS system error preventing timely payment the day before the conference. The WCAB set aside the dismissal, finding it unjust to burden a party with system inadequacies, and returned the case for further proceedings. However, the WCAB cautioned that future dismissals for similar reasons will require a stronger showing of diligence and immediate reporting of EAMS failures.

Lien activation feeEAMS errorWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien conferenceLabor Code section 4903.06Dismissal of lienInterests of justiceDiligenceMultiple attempts to pay
References
Showing 1-10 of 735 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