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. ADJ8620013, ADJ10761228
Regular
Jun 08, 2017

MARK EBERWEIN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order. The WCAB further denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial. The WCJ's decision addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not a substantive right or threshold issue. Therefore, neither reconsideration nor removal was deemed appropriate at this stage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ12205724
Regular
Jul 03, 2019

DENISSE LOPEZ vs. CHINO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, HCMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Consequently, the case proceeds as if no reconsideration or removal was granted.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ3521523 (OAK0322592), ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685), ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Oct 25, 2016

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pamela Zeilstra's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order. The WCAB determined that the workers' compensation judge's decision only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. Furthermore, the petition for removal was denied, as Zeilstra failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ10076795, ADJ10799417
Regular
Aug 28, 2017

ONICA COLE vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ACME ADMINISTRATORS TEMECULA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order that addressed only intermediate procedural or evidentiary issues. The WCAB also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, both the reconsideration and removal petitions were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ7686404
Regular
Jul 28, 2016

ALBERTO CORREA LOPEZ vs. GATANAGA NURSERY; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition for removal were dismissed and denied, respectively.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ9619516
Regular
Feb 19, 2015

RUBICELIA RUIZ DE GOMEZ vs. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES; TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Rubicelia Ruiz de Gomez's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order. The WCJ's decision addressed only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed, and the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034) ADJ1776170 (MON 0224335)
Regular
Feb 10, 2016

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT FOOD SERVICES, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration and removal that was dismissed and denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board found that the WCJ's decision addressed only an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary issue, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as premature. The petition for removal was also denied, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ3402783
Regular
Jun 17, 2016

JOSEFINA CASTILLO TAYLOR vs. ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal that was dismissed and denied, respectively. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) adopted the judge's report, finding the initial decision was not a "final" order as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. Consequently, reconsideration was improper because it only applies to final orders. The WCAB also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ9217031
Regular
Sep 15, 2015

OFELIA GONZALEZ vs. RANCHO HARVEST, TWIN CITIES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed applicant Ofelia Gonzalez's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied her petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration would not adequately address. The WCJ's decision addressed only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and removal were dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,303 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