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. ADJ1924276 ADJ1449948 ADJ1052896 ADJ1110587
Regular
Jun 15, 2018

JOSE AVINA vs. HIGH-TECH SEATING\/HARTFORD, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration after their lien was dismissed for failure to appear at a conference. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the lien claimant's claim of excusable neglect insufficient to excuse the failure to calendar the hearing. Despite procedural issues with service of the dismissal order, the Board determined the lien claimant's explanation for missing the hearing lacked a logical connection to the settlement discussions they claimed excused their oversight. A dissenting opinion argued the dismissal was invalid due to defective service and that excusable neglect should have warranted reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantExcusable NeglectPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienWCJService of ProcessDue ProcessLabor Code Section 5903
References
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
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
Case No. ADJ6545416
Regular
Jun 10, 2016

CARLOS LOPEZ vs. MUSEUM SQUARE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND INSURED

Tri-County Medical Group sought reconsideration of a dismissal for non-appearance at a lien trial, arguing their representative had a conflicting appearance and this constituted excusable neglect. While a notice of representation was filed, the Board denied reconsideration. The Board found Tri-County failed to provide adequate grounds for relief under CCP 473(b), as the representative's attendance at other matters, without prior notice to the court, did not rise to the level of excusable neglect. Therefore, the dismissal of Tri-County's lien stands.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien Claim DismissalReconsiderationNon-AppearanceLien ConferenceExcusable NeglectCode of Civil Procedure Section 473(b)Petition for ReconsiderationNotice of RepresentationWCJ
References
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
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
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
Case No. ADJ1622633 (VEN 0115623)
Regular
May 15, 2012

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

This case involves Salvador Contreras's petition to reopen his workers' compensation claim for new and further disability. The original claim was venued in Ventura/Oxnard, but Contreras filed his reopen petition in Los Angeles. The WCJ denied the petition based on former WCAB Rule 10390, which required filing in the proper district office and did not excuse non-compliance for filing in an incorrect office. The Court of Appeal, however, reversed this decision, holding that current WCAB Rule 10397, which allows filing in any office, applied as a procedural change. The Court also found that even under former Rule 10390, Contreras demonstrated excusable neglect, thus compelling the WCAB to grant reconsideration and return the case for a decision on the merits.

RemittiturPetition to ReopenStatute of LimitationsLabor Code 5410Labor Code 5804WCAB Rule 10390WCAB Rule 10397Excusable NeglectNew and Further DisabilityCourt of Appeal
References
Case No. LBO 381709
Regular
Mar 11, 2008

ANGELA POPS vs. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES (Adjusting Agent)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Wells Fargo's petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, but rather from a procedural order setting a case for trial. The WCAB also denied Wells Fargo's petition for removal, finding that they failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the trial setting, especially since their failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference was due to institutional neglect. The Board emphasized that the WCJ followed proper procedure by setting the case for trial after the defendant's no-show and that discovery could still be pursued if needed.

Mandatory Settlement ConferencePetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDue ProcessSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMedical LeaveInstitutional Neglect
References
Case No. ADJ9411508
Regular
Dec 02, 2018

JUAN FRANCO SANDOVAL vs. TUTTLE FAMILY ENTERPRISES dba PEERLESS BUILDING, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that the lien claimant's failure to appear at trial and its inadequate attempts to secure a continuance were due to excusable neglect stemming from the hospitalization of its CEO. Consequently, the prior order disallowing the lien was rescinded. The matter has been returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeContinuanceExcusable NeglectMedical EmergencyE-filing ProceduresSanctions
References
Showing 1-10 of 294 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