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. ADJ12788878
Regular
Dec 10, 2020

MARIO LUPERCIO PEREZ vs. ARMANDO CHAN dba CHAN DRAINAGE, MARKEL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed as a removal petition challenging interlocutory issues. Although the WCJ's decision contained a final threshold finding of injury AOE/COE, the defendant only disputed the specialty of a QME and the timeliness of an objection, which are interlocutory. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy later if a final adverse decision issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueInjury AOE/COEQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Treating Physician ReportRemoval StandardSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ7632202, ADJ7632184
Regular
Apr 13, 2015

TAYDE CHAPARRO vs. TALBOTS, INC, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Tayde Chaparro's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found that the petition sought reconsideration of a non-final, interlocutory order, not a final decision that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. Therefore, as the order was not final, the petition was procedurally improper and dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionEvidentiary decisionWCJ decision
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. 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. ADJ7555409
Regular
Mar 04, 2014

JESUS ESCANUELA vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's untimely petition. The WCAB found that the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion regarding psychiatric permanent disability was not supported by substantial evidence, as it did not properly address causation under the current PDRS. Consequently, the case is remanded to the trial level for further development of the record concerning psychiatric permanent disability. The WCAB deferred the issue of permanent disability and attorney's fees pending this further development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJesus EscanuelaCalifornia Department of Correctionslegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ7555409Fresno District OfficeOpinion and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
Case No. ADJ8651999
Regular
Jul 18, 2014

CARL YARDE (Deceased) vs. EIU OF CALIFORNIA, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, ZURICH INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order dismisses a Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denies removal, adopting the administrative law judge's reasoning that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The petition addressed interlocutory procedural matters, not a final decision. Consequently, the WCAB found the petition procedurally improper and denied removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNon-final OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ11154163
Regular
Jan 09, 2019

FAUSTO DIAZ vs. C OVERAA & COMPANY, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior decision and returned the case to the trial level. This action allows the workers' compensation administrative law judge to review a proposed settlement reached between the applicant and defendant. If the settlement is not approved, the original decision can be reinstated, and either party may seek reconsideration. This is not a final ruling on the merits of the case.

ReconsiderationWithdrawal without prejudicePetition for ReconsiderationProposed settlementRescinded decisionReturned to trial levelWCJ approvalReinstating original decisionFinal decision on meritsFindings of Fact
References
Case No. ADJ7087613
Regular
Jul 12, 2013

CLORIA HERNANDEZ vs. GOGLONIAN BAKERIES, ZURICH

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was filed from an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order. Under Labor Code section 5900(a), reconsideration is only permitted for final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities. Since the WCJ's Notice of Intent to Dismiss Lien was not a final dismissal, there was no appealable order, thus warranting dismissal of the petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900(a)Interlocutory DecisionNotice of Intent to DismissProfessional Translation ServicesDismissalSubstantive Right
References
Showing 1-10 of 9,755 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