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. ADJ1600976 (OAK 0345394) ADJ1359107 (OAK 0345395)
Regular
May 03, 2016

ELAINE JACKSON vs. COMCAST CORPORATION

This case involves a petition for removal filed by Comcast Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely. The WCAB found that the petition was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision was served, exceeding the statutory deadline for filing such a petition. Even if it had been timely, the WCAB would have denied it on the merits based on the WCJ's report.

Petition for RemovalTimelinessWCAB Rule 10843(a)WCJ DecisionService by MailPetition FilingWCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10508Mailing vs. FilingWCAB Rule 10845(a)
References
Case No. ADJ358640 (ANA 0408299)
Regular
Dec 13, 2017

JOSE BASULTO vs. BREA ROOFING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In *Basulto v. Brea Roofing*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The WCAB emphasized that the 25-day filing deadline for reconsideration is jurisdictional and requires the petition to be *received* by the Board, not merely mailed, within that period. The petition in this case was filed 26 days after the WCJ's decision, exceeding the statutory timeframe. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the authority to review the petition on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeService by MailJurisdictional Time LimitProof of MailingWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845
References
Case No. ADJ10364681
Regular
Jul 18, 2016

GREGORIO ROMERO vs. LA MARRIOTT HOTEL, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was untimely. California law strictly enforces the jurisdictional deadline for filing petitions for reconsideration, and proof of mailing is insufficient; the petition must be received by the WCAB within the prescribed 25-day period. The WCAB found that the petition was filed well beyond this deadline, rendering it void and without legal effect.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10392Service by MailProof of FilingAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ9997985, ADJ9997986, ADJ10037755
Regular
Apr 10, 2017

DAVID LIVINGSTON vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC.;, PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION;, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for removal filed by the defendant. The WCAB found the petition was untimely because it was filed one day after the 20-day deadline for removal following personal service. This deadline is jurisdictional, and the WCAB cannot consider petitions filed outside this timeframe. Therefore, the petition was dismissed with no request for supplemental pleading granted.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingPersonal ServiceWCJ DecisionAppeals Board RuleJurisdictional Time LimitSupplemental PleadingWCAB Rule 10848WCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10507
References
Case No. ADJ10055937
Regular
Jul 18, 2016

WILLIE HARRIS vs. KAISER STEEL RESOURCES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Kaiser Steel Resources, Inc.'s Petition for Removal in the case of Willie Harris. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the twenty-five-day deadline for removal petitions served by mail in California. The WCAB noted that proof of mailing is insufficient; the petition must be received by the WCAB within the allowed timeframe. Even if timely, the petition would have been denied on its merits as per the WCJ's report.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingWCAB Rule 10843(a)WCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)Service by MailDeadline ExtensionNon-final Decision
References
Case No. ADJ6759028 ADJ9793036
Regular
Sep 09, 2015

JAVIER MOYA vs. SLEEP TRAIN, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Javier Moya's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. California law allows twenty-five days for filing, with extensions for weekends or holidays, but the petition was filed over four months after the WCJ's decision. Timeliness is a jurisdictional requirement, meaning the WCAB lacks authority to consider petitions filed outside this timeframe. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits as per the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationuntimelydismissaljurisdictionalWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10392proof of mailingproof of receipt
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. ADJ7639734
Regular
Aug 13, 2015

MARK LIVINGSTON, KRISTINE LIVINGSTON vs. KEMPER SPORT MANAGEMENT INC., CRUM FORSTER

This case involves a Petition for Removal that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB found the petition to be untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's decision. Filing by mail does not satisfy the requirement that the petition must be *received* by the WCAB within the statutory period. Therefore, the WCAB dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingWCJ DecisionService by MailBusiness Day ExtensionProof of FilingWCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10843(a)WCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10845(a)
References
Case No. ADJ2823879 (OXN 0142040)
Regular
Aug 17, 2015

ARLENE TWINE vs. PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Arlene Twine's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within 25 days of the WCJ's decision, with extensions for weekends/holidays. The WCAB clarified that filing means actual receipt by the Board, not just mailing. As Twine's petition was filed on June 26, 2015, over 25 days after the May 28, 2015 decision, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider it.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)Labor Code Sections 5900(a)Labor Code Section 5903
References
Case No. FRE 0202161
Regular
Sep 27, 2007

ARTHUR A. RUIZ, JR. vs. CITY OF CLOVIS, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By AIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding, upholding the applicant's entitlement to temporary disability benefits after his retirement. The Board found the applicant's testimony credible, establishing that his retirement was necessitated by his admitted industrial knee injury, differentiating this case from one where an applicant voluntarily exits the labor market. Furthermore, the Board affirmed the validity of the parties' stipulation regarding the temporary disability rate, as no good cause was shown to disturb it.

WCABReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityRetirementIndustrial InjuryLabor Code § 4453(d)CredibilityStipulationCase LawGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Showing 1-10 of 17,149 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