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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
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. 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. ADJ7899311
Regular
Jun 17, 2014

RONNY PINEDA vs. PEPSI BEVERAGE COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

A lien claimant's petition for reconsideration was denied by operation of law because it was improperly labeled in the Electronic Adjudication Management System, preventing the Appeals Board from timely acting on it. The Board determined the lien claimant's error, not any fault of the Board, prevented the petition from being considered within the statutory 60-day period. Furthermore, the petition was sought from a procedural order, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities, which is a prerequisite for reconsideration. Therefore, the petition would have been dismissed even if properly filed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Lien ClaimantAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Discovery RequestAffidavitOperation of LawToll the PeriodFinal Order
References
Case No. ADJ9169097 (MF) ADJ9165067
Regular
Aug 09, 2019

Rosa Reyes vs. Nestle USA, ACE American Insurance

This case involved lien claimants whose liens were disallowed because their Labor Code section 4903.8(d) declarations were signed with electronic "S" signatures rather than wet signatures. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, holding that electronic signatures are valid for these declarations. The WCAB found that existing law and prior panel decisions support the use of electronic signatures, aligning with the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)wet signatureelectronic signaturelien claimantsJoint Findings of Fact and OrderElectronic Adjudication Management SystemJET File Business RulesEAMS Rulespenalty of perjuryUniform Electronic Transactions Act
References
Case No. ADJ8949346, ADJ10021120
Regular
Aug 16, 2016

ANTHONY BERNARD EDWARDS (DEC) vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Anthony Bernard Edwards, deceased, versus the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports. This decision allows for further review of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned outcome. All future communications regarding the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not with the district office or through the Electronic Adjudication Management System. The order specifies that trial-level documents unrelated to the reconsideration petition should continue to be e-filed normally.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONCITY OF LOS ANGELESLOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTSVAN NUYS DISTRICT OFFICEDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONSTATUTORY TIME CONSTRAINTSFACTUAL AND LEGAL ISSUESJUST AND REASONED DECISION
References
Case No. ADJ7180817
Regular
Feb 02, 2018

VICTOR SALGUERO vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The petition was deemed filed on December 12, 2017, which was one day after the jurisdictional deadline of December 11, 2017. This tardiness resulted from the petition being electronically filed after 5:00 PM on the final day for filing. The Board also admonished the defendant's litigation manager for submitting unverified evidence and making unsubstantiated factual assertions.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessDismissalElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSAppeals Board RuleWCJSupplemental PleadingJurisdictionalFindings of Fact
References
Case No. ADJ603568 (MON 0359075)
Regular
Feb 22, 2013

COLEE PITCHFORD vs. TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION, CHARTIS

In Pitchford v. Trimac Transportation, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was primarily based on the petition's failure to comply with Labor Code section 5905, which mandates service on all adverse parties. The WCAB also noted that even if properly served, the petition would have been denied on its merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Finally, the Board clarified that MJR Management Services, Inc. is not a party but an alleged representative, and their representation of a lien claimant lacked proper documentation in the EAMS.

Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5905Adverse partiesService deficiencyWorkers' compensation administrative law judgeReport and RecommendationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSLien claimantMJR Management Services
References
Case No. ADJ 528016 (LAO 0797447) ADJ 4708211 (LAO 0831457)
Regular
May 08, 2016

JORGE PAREDES vs. COASTCAST CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted reconsideration of a prior decision concerning Jorge Paredes and multiple defendant insurers. This grant is a procedural step to allow the Board to thoroughly review the complex factual and legal issues presented in the case. The Board intends to conduct further study and potentially additional proceedings to reach a just and reasoned decision. All future filings related to the petition for reconsideration must be submitted directly to the Board's Commissioners' office, not district offices or via e-filing in EAMS.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONGRANT OF RECONSIDERATIONSTATUTORY TIME CONSTRAINTSOFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERSELECTRONIC ADJUDICATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMEAMSWCJDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONLIQUIDATION
References
Case No. ADJ5810088, ADJ6789908
Regular
Jan 30, 2015

EMBER HOUSTON vs. BSK ASSOCIATES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant sought reconsideration of two stipulated awards where the administrative law judge named "SCIF Insured Fresno" instead of the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Appeals Board rule 10550 requires the use of a party's "full legal name" in stipulated awards. Since the Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS) name lacks legal effect, the Board amended both awards to correctly identify State Compensation Insurance Fund as the obligor.

Stipulated AwardsReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemLegal NameAppeals Board Rule 10550Full Legal NameSCIF Insured FresnoState Compensation Insurance FundWCJPetition for Reconsideration
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,967 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