Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ8050106 ADJ9468937 ADJ9154032

Regular

Nov 03, 2018

ANTONIO VAZQUEZ vs. CARSON TRAILERS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was taken from an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision issues. The order pertains to multiple cases involving Antonio Vazquez and Carson Trailers. The WCJ's order directing the use of a specific bill reviewer was deemed an evidentiary/procedural matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderEvidentiary OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy

References

Case No. ADJ4201900 (OAK 0256105) ADJ1515754 (OAK 0212526) ADJ868359 (OAK 0282983)

Regular

Feb 27, 2017

GRACE BEATTY vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration. The petitions sought to revisit a Minute Order that placed the case off calendar, which is not a final order. A petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a final order that determines substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the WCAB found the petitions procedurally improper and dismissed them.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOff Calendar OrderCompromise and ReleaseSubsequent Injury Benefits Trust FundNon-Final OrderLabor CodeFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiability

References

Case No. ADJ9925486

Regular

Jun 10, 2016

ALEJANDRO OJEDA CHAVEZ vs. CONCO COMPANIES, ZURICH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final, interlocutory order. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the order did not determine substantive rights, liabilities, or a threshold issue. The petition for removal was also denied, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB stressed that petitions for reconsideration are for final decisions, while removal is the avenue for challenging interim orders.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate Remedy

References

Case No. ADJ9274305

Regular

Dec 15, 2014

SALVADOR REYES vs. AVP&H A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Salvador Reyes's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot, as the underlying issue regarding a specific Qualified Medical Examiner appeared to be resolved. Both petitions were denied as they did not address substantive rights or liabilities. The order reflects standard practice for non-final and moot petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityMootnessQMEOrder to CompelMeet and Confer

References

Case No. ADJ8091143

Regular

Jul 24, 2013

ELISE AINSLEY vs. RESCARE INC.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final, interlocutory discovery order, which is not subject to reconsideration. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, adopting the judge's reasoning and finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant was admonished for improperly seeking reconsideration of an interim order. Ultimately, both the petition for reconsideration and removal were dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory DecisionNon-Final OrderProcedural OrderEvidentiary DecisionDiscovery OrderAdministrative Law Judge

References

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. SAU10030321

Regular

Oct 08, 2019

BRIAN DUARTE vs. ALL ABOUT PAINT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Brian Duarte's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, decision, or award. A final order must determine a substantive right or liability, or a fundamental threshold issue, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary matters. The WCJ's order consolidating cases, designating a master file, staying liens, and noticing a hearing was deemed an interlocutory procedural order and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionOrder of ConsolidationDesignation of Master File

References

Case No. ADJ9120917, ADJ6899995

Regular

Sep 16, 2016

RICK STEIN vs. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH

The WCAB dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order vacating a prior order approving a compromise and release was not a final order. The Board granted the defendant's petition for removal to amend the vacating order, specifying the matter should be set for a status conference. This action was taken under WCAB Rule 10859, allowing the WCJ to rescind an order and conduct further proceedings within 30 days. The case is returned to the WCJ to determine if good cause exists to set aside the compromise and release.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOrder Vacating Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJLabor Code Section 132(a)Cumulative Trauma InjuryLeft Knee Injury

References

Case No. ADJ1047343

Regular

Dec 17, 2015

HELEN WILSON vs. CHEMOIL CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on the fact that the petition sought reconsideration of a non-final order, which is not permissible under California Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903. The Board clarified that only final orders, which determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, are subject to reconsideration. The WCJ's decision in this instance was deemed an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary ruling, thus not a final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsWCJ

References

Case No. ADJ9876334

Regular

Dec 12, 2017

ERIC DOZIER vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Kaiser Permanente's petition for reconsideration because the order they sought to appeal was not a final order. They also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board further clarified that the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely due to a defective service designation on the original Order Approving Compromise and Release. Finally, the WCJ acted within their authority to rescind the Order Approving Compromise and Release after a timely reconsideration petition was filed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOACRDefective Service

References

Showing 1-10 of 8,988 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ8050106 ADJ9468937 ADJ9154032

Regular

Nov 03, 2018

ANTONIO VAZQUEZ vs. CARSON TRAILERS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderEvidentiary OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy

References

Case No. ADJ4201900 (OAK 0256105) ADJ1515754 (OAK 0212526) ADJ868359 (OAK 0282983)

Regular

Feb 27, 2017

GRACE BEATTY vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN HOSPITAL

References

Case No. ADJ9925486

Regular

Jun 10, 2016

ALEJANDRO OJEDA CHAVEZ vs. CONCO COMPANIES, ZURICH INSURANCE

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate Remedy

References

Case No. ADJ9274305

Regular

Dec 15, 2014

SALVADOR REYES vs. AVP&H A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityMootnessQMEOrder to CompelMeet and Confer

References

Case No. ADJ8091143

Regular

Jul 24, 2013

ELISE AINSLEY vs. RESCARE INC.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory DecisionNon-Final OrderProcedural OrderEvidentiary DecisionDiscovery OrderAdministrative Law Judge

References

Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)

Regular

Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

References

Case No. SAU10030321

Regular

Oct 08, 2019

BRIAN DUARTE vs. ALL ABOUT PAINT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionOrder of ConsolidationDesignation of Master File

References

Case No. ADJ9120917, ADJ6899995

Regular

Sep 16, 2016

RICK STEIN vs. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH

References

Case No. ADJ1047343

Regular

Dec 17, 2015

HELEN WILSON vs. CHEMOIL CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsWCJ

References

Case No. ADJ9876334

Regular

Dec 12, 2017

ERIC DOZIER vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOACRDefective Service

References

Showing 1-10 of 8,988 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.