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. ADJ2219719 (VNO 0499919)
Regular
Jul 02, 2009

ELMER COREAS vs. PEKING NOODLE COMPANY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The petition was dismissed as untimely because it was filed 29 days after the decision was served, exceeding the jurisdictional 20-day limit plus a potential 5-day mailing extension. The WCAB emphasized that filing deadlines are jurisdictional and that the Board lacks the power to grant untimely petitions. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits according to the WCJ's report.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDELMER COREASPEKING NOODLE COMPANYZENITH INSURANCE COMPANYADJ2219719VNO 0499919OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING RECONSIDERATIONpetition for reconsiderationuntimelyLabor Code section 5903
References
Case No. ADJ316855
Regular
Mar 12, 2009

MELINDA COREA vs. RSKO, CNA CASUALTY OF CALIFORNIA

The applicant, Melinda Corea, petitioned for reconsideration of a December 19, 2008, decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, finding it necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision. The Board will proceed with further proceedings as deemed appropriate following this reconsideration. All future communications regarding this case should be directed to the Board.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ316855POM 0282236Melinda CoreaRSKOCNA Casualty of CaliforniaOpinion and OrderStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal Issues
References
Case No. ADJ1932035 (ANA 0234626) ADJ2673288 (ANA 0234627) ADJ4019770 (ANA 0234628)
Regular
Jun 15, 2009

Elmer Bourland vs. LONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding a prior order for a lifetime annuity of $900 per month. Defendant argued the original compromise and release agreement intended only a 15-year guaranteed payment period, not a lifetime annuity. However, the Board found the 1992 Order approving the settlement explicitly stated "lifetime annuity" and was not timely challenged by defendant. As no good cause such as fraud or mutual mistake was shown, the 1992 Order is now final and binding.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDELMER BOURLANDLONG BEACH MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTERTRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENTFindings and Orderlifetime annuityCompromise & Releaseindustrial injuryright kneeinternal system
References
Case No. ADJ9895504
Regular
Jan 17, 2020

Elmer Umana vs. West Coast Arborists, Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves an employer's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award. The employer argued the award was untimely, and that the Qualified Medical Examiner's (QME) reports were inadmissible as they lacked substantial evidence and proper causation analysis. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that any delay in issuing the award did not invalidate it. The Board also held that the QME's reports were admissible and constituted substantial evidence, as they detailed causation and reasoning for the impairment ratings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElmer UmanaWest Coast ArboristsInc.Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanyADJ9895504Opinion and Order Denying Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Award and OrdersAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Injury Arising Out of and Occurring in the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)
References
Case No. ADJ9344182, ADJ9344101
Regular
Jul 29, 2019

ROSA COREAS vs. LANGER JUICE COMPANY, INC., SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY, ENSTAR (US), INC.

This case involved applicant Rosa Coreas's claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained while employed by Langer Juice Company. The core dispute concerned whether the defendant acted in bad faith by refusing to agree to an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) or a joint request for additional Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels for psychiatric and neurological evaluations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the initial decision, finding that the defendant's refusal did not constitute bad faith or frivolous tactics under Labor Code Section 5813. The Board noted that both parties could have handled the situation better and that the case was distinguishable from prior precedent requiring such agreements. Ultimately, the Board determined there was no good cause to overturn the administrative law judge's decision denying sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and OrderAgreed Medical ExaminersQualified Medical EvaluatorsPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsBad Faith ActionsLabor Code Section 5813Administrative Director Rule 31.7Medical-Legal Report
References
Case No. ADJ2789507 (VNO 0455132)
Regular
Jun 15, 2012

JOSE GUADALUPE FLORES vs. HARBOR RAIL TRANSPORTATION, U.S. FIDELITY \u0026 GUARANTY CORPORATION

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, involving applicant Jose Guadalupe Flores against Harbor Rail Transportation and its insurer, is being reconsidered. Both the applicant and defendant petitioned for review of a prior decision. The Board granted reconsideration to allow further study of the factual and legal issues, aiming for a just and reasoned decision. All future communications must be filed in writing with the Board's Office of the Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust DecisionReasoned DecisionFurther ProceedingsCommissionersSan Francisco
References
Case No. ADJ7448890, ADJ7816111
Regular
Nov 08, 2012

ELMER SALAZAR MUNOZ vs. DENNY'S RESTAURANT, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award due to an incomplete and unorganized case record. Despite the judge admitting medical reports, they were not present in the electronic system for review. The Board found this failure to maintain a proper record hindered their ability to consider the defendant's petition. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for proper record preparation and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJCumulative Trauma InjuryPrima Facie CaseAdmissible Medical ReportsEAMSReport and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ16246113
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

ELMER HERNANDEZ vs. TACO BELL, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration and removal concerning an order compelling discovery of market rate guidelines and the identity of a knowledgeable person. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, deeming it untimely and from a non-final order, and denied the removal petition. The Board found the defendant failed to establish attorney work-product privilege, as no attorney asserted the privilege and no evidence demonstrated the guidelines were attorney work-product. Finally, the defendant waived its argument regarding the knowledgeable person by failing to adequately brief the issue.

Cost petitionerAttorney work productMarket rate guidelinesPerson most knowledgeablePetition for reconsiderationPetition for removalFindings and OrderWCJSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
Case No. ADJ12375088
Regular
Mar 24, 2023

ELMER FERRER vs. WEBER METALS INC., SENTRY SELECT STEVENS POINT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for reconsideration filed by Weber Metals Inc. The defendant sought to overturn an order directing further record development through medical panels. The Board determined that while the WCJ's decision resolved threshold issues making it a final order, the defendant's challenge pertained solely to an interlocutory discovery order. Consequently, the Board applied the stricter "removal" standard and found that the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, thus denying the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and Orderdevelop the recordinternal/endocrinologypsychologyReport and Recommendationthreshold issuefinal decisioninterlocutory issue
References
Case No. ADJ7942666; ADJ7942662
Regular
Feb 18, 2014

ELMER FERNANDEZ vs. DUNCAN BOLT COMPANY, TOKIO MARINE MANAGEMENT, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant, Post-Surgical Rehab Specialists, seeking reconsideration of a dismissal order for failing to appear at a lien trial. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirming the dismissal in ADJ7942666 due to multiple missed appearances. However, the dismissal was amended to strike ADJ7942662 because that claim was not included in a prior notice of intention to dismiss. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, finding the claimant's asserted neglect excusable for ADJ7942662 but not for ADJ7942666.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder for DismissalFailure to AppearLien TrialLien ConferenceNotice of Intention to DismissExcusable NeglectMiscalendared
References
Showing 1-10 of 11 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