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. ADJ8639697, ADJ8585911
Regular
May 17, 2018

BRIGIDA PEREZ vs. LOVIN OVEN, THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a dismissal order for a lien claimant's failure to appear at a lien conference. The lien claimant sought relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, claiming excusable neglect due to a mis-calendared hearing date. The WCAB found the lien claimant's petition lacked sufficient detail to establish excusable mistake. The WCAB will affirm the dismissal unless the lien claimant provides a sworn declaration from a person with personal knowledge detailing the facts of the excusable mistake.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationExcusable neglectCode of Civil Procedure section 473Mis-calendaredSworn declarationPersonal knowledgeWCJDismissal with prejudiceFox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
6
Case No. ADJ1622633
Regular
Apr 04, 2011

SALVADOR CONTRERAS vs. M&C FARM LABOR, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE PASADENA, PAULA INSURANCE

This case involved an applicant seeking to reopen his workers' compensation claim due to new and further disability. The WCAB denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision that the applicant's petition to reopen was barred by the five-year statute of limitations. This was because the petition was improperly filed in the wrong district office, violating WCAB rules requiring filing in the office with venue. Despite the applicant's pro se status and his argument for liberal construction, the majority found no alleged excusable neglect and thus upheld the dismissal. A dissenting opinion argued that the applicant's actions demonstrated mistake and excusable neglect, and that the WCAB should have excused the procedural error to allow a hearing on the merits.

Petition to ReopenStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5410Labor Code Section 5804WCAB Rule 10390WCAB Rule 10450Proper VenueDistrict Office FilingMistakeInadvertence
References
6
Case No. ADJ3362610 (AHM 0122924)
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

JOSE COLLASO, JOSE COLLAZO vs. PACIFIC FRESH FOOD CO., PREMIER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed 146 days after the original dismissal order, far exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline. The Board noted that untimely petitions cannot be excused by mistake or excusable neglect, even if the applicant experienced homelessness. However, the WCAB will remand the case to the WCJ to treat the petition as a request to reopen the dismissal for good cause and schedule a hearing on that specific issue.

Petition for reconsiderationDismissal for lack of prosecutionPetition to reopenGood causeJurisdictional time limitsFinal orderUntimely petitionContinuing jurisdictionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judge
References
16
Case No. ADJ8 453844
Regular
Jun 15, 2016

ISOBETH CABRERA vs. LABOR READY, ESIS

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of a dismissed lien. The lien was dismissed because the claimant failed to appear at a lien conference and subsequently file a properly verified objection detailing the excusable neglect. While the Board granted reconsideration, it intends to affirm the dismissal unless the claimant provides a sworn affidavit from a person with personal knowledge explaining the circumstances of the failure to appear. This affidavit must sufficiently detail the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention to Dismiss Lienverified objectionCode of Civil Procedure section 473Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Beverly Hills Multispecialty Group Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.failure to appear
References
6
Case No. ADJ3992748 (SDO 0319279)
Regular
Nov 01, 2019

MARTHA GONZALEZ vs. ANGELICA CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA, INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, FOR LUMBERMAN’S MUTUAL CASUALTY INSURANCE, IN LIQUIDATION, BY ITS SERVICING FACILITY, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

Defendant California Insurance Guarantee Association sought reconsideration of an order dismissing it from a workers' compensation case, arguing excusable neglect and mutual mistake regarding reimbursement amounts. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as premature, as no evidence was taken to support the defendant's claims of a mistake in the stipulation. The matter is returned to the trial level to allow the WCJ to hold a hearing on the defendant's petition to set aside the order. This ensures due process and a proper evidentiary record before any final determination.

California Insurance Guarantee AssociationLumberman's Mutual Casualty InsuranceTristar Risk ManagementZurich American Insurance CompanyGallagher Bassett ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationExcusable NeglectMutual Mistake of FactStipulationsOrder Dismissing Defendant
References
11
Case No. ADJ7764690
Regular
May 03, 2017

Melissa Tucker vs. Obagi Skin Health Institute, Hartford Sacramento

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration regarding the dismissal of its lien claim. The dismissal was based on the lien representative's failure to appear at a lien conference. The WCAB will affirm the dismissal unless the lien claimant provides a sworn declaration from a person with personal knowledge explaining the excusable neglect, such as a computer error, that caused the representative's absence. This affidavit must demonstrate facts sufficient to establish mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Code of Civil Procedure section 473.

Lien claimantReconsiderationExcusable neglectCode of Civil Procedure section 473Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Sworn declarationPersonal knowledgeComputer errorWCJ dismissalNotice of Intention
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Specialty Services, Inc.

Claimant, a construction foreman for Specialty Services, Inc., was injured while performing work for a church in Pennsylvania. Although Specialty filed a work-related accident report and its carrier began paying benefits, the carrier filed a notice of controversy over seven months after the Workers' Compensation Board indexed the case, exceeding the 25-day limit. The carrier argued that the late filing was due to surprise, mistake, and newly discovered evidence regarding the church's involvement, which claimant and Specialty allegedly failed to disclose. The Workers' Compensation Board refused to excuse the late filing, finding the carrier failed to demonstrate good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the carrier had ample time to investigate and that belatedly obtained evidence is not a sufficient ground to excuse a late filing.

Workers' CompensationLate Notice of ControversyTimely FilingEmployer-Employee RelationshipInsurance CarrierGood CausePleading BarAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1981

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Newman

Plaintiff insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, mistakenly paid $9,805.66 to defendant Ruth Newman, intended for an aggregate trust fund related to her deceased husband's workers' compensation benefits. After forwarding the correct payment to the fund, Liberty Mutual sought restitution from Newman, who refused. The Workers' Compensation Board declined to intervene, stating no recourse existed under the Workers' Compensation Law for the error. Special Term initially granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual. On appeal, the judgment was modified, with the Appellate Division agreeing it was a mistake of fact, not an overpayment of benefits, thus affirming the denial of Newman's summary judgment motion. However, the case was remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine if ordering full restitution would cause a detrimental change in Newman's position regarding her benefits, and clarified that interest and costs should not be awarded against her.

restitutionmistake of factworkers' compensationsummary judgmentunjust enrichmentdetrimental relianceequityinsurance carrieraggregate trust fundappellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Parmenter v. New York Telephone Co.

The Workers’ Compensation Board excused the claimant's failure to give timely notice of an ankle injury sustained on October 16, 1979. The claimant notified her employer on November 26, 1979, after receiving medical treatment. The board found that notice was given as soon as the claimant became aware of the nature and extent of her injury. Additionally, the employer had actual knowledge of the injury due to the claimant's obvious disability, causing no prejudice. The appellate court affirmed the board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support its findings.

Workers' CompensationNotice of InjuryTimely NoticeEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceAnkle InjuryBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceExcused Failure
References
3
Case No. ADJ2025895 (VNO 09554316)
Regular
Jul 08, 2013

MARIA DUMBRIQUE vs. FANTASTIC SAMS, STATE FARM

The lien claimant, Orthogear, LLC, had its lien dismissed for failing to pay an activation fee at a lien conference. Orthogear argued it was not served notice of the conference, leading to its non-appearance due to mistake and excusable neglect. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding Orthogear was indeed not properly served with notice. Therefore, the order dismissing Orthogear's lien was rescinded.

Lien Activation FeeDeclaration of ReadinessProof of PaymentExcusable NeglectService of NoticeElectronic Adjudication Management SystemCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryHairdresserOrder Approving Compromise and Release
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 603 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