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. 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. ADJ8770457
Regular
Apr 21, 2015

NICK IVANOFF vs. VIRONEX, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Nick Ivanoff's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found that a petition for reconsideration can only be filed from a "final" order, decision, or award, which must determine substantive rights or liabilities, or a fundamental threshold issue. The Judge's decision in this case was deemed an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision, not a final one. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as it was improperly filed.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ10204171
Regular
Oct 13, 2016

BEATRIZ AGUILAR vs. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP AND NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD adjusted by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, but rather from an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The WCJ's report, incorporated by reference, provided the basis for both decisions. Therefore, the applicant's requests were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ4221124
Regular
Feb 23, 2012

THOMAS OLSON (DEC'D) vs. CITY OF VACAVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order that determined a substantive right or liability. Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not considered final. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, adopting the judge's reasoning that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedRemoval DeniedFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionPre-trial OrderSubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ7669443 ADJ7739963
Regular
Jun 03, 2015

CARLOS MARTINEZ vs. SA RECYCLING CORPORATION, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, which the Board adopted, articulated the reasoning for these dismissals and denials. Therefore, the applicant's attempt to appeal an interim ruling was unsuccessful on both procedural grounds.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ10211772
Regular
Dec 06, 2016

KELLY TUCKETT vs. CITY OF BELLFLOWER, YORK ROSEVILLE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Kelly Tuckett against the City of Bellflower and York Roseville. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was filed in response to a non-final order. California law dictates that reconsideration can only be sought from final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. The WCAB found the administrative law judge's decision addressed only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter, not a final determination.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutory decisionProcedural decisionEvidentiary decisionWCJ report
References
Case No. ADJ2038785 (VNO 0426080), ADJ900602 (VNO 0426045), ADJ2562931 (VNO 0494371), ADJ7032939, ADJ7045667
Regular
Aug 01, 2019

JOSEPH PROTHRO vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND as administered by ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, involving multiple claim numbers for Joseph Prothro against State Compensation Insurance Fund, has been granted reconsideration. The Board rescinded the prior WCJ's decision because a settlement has been proposed. The case is now returned to the WCJ to evaluate the settlement, with the option to reinstate the original decision if the settlement is not approved. This decision is not a final determination on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGrant ReconsiderationRescind DecisionReturn to Trial LevelWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeProposed SettlementApproval of SettlementReinstating Original DecisionFinal Decision
References
Case No. ADJ9139200
Regular
Dec 11, 2015

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Matthew Bakes' petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be based on "final" orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions. The WCJ's decision at issue here only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter. Thus, it was not a final order, and the petition was procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsRemoval
References
Case No. ADJ210156
Regular

CIRILO PEREZ, CIRILO PEREZ-GARCIA vs. VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed from an interlocutory order, not a final decision that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The decision adopted and incorporated by reference the Workers' Compensation Judge's Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the petition was dismissed and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Showing 1-10 of 8,602 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