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. LAO 0834414
Regular
Mar 03, 2008

NATASHA FANE vs. PRIME CLINICAL SYSTEMS, INC., EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Everest's petition for reconsideration, rescinded a prior order, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine contribution liability between Everest and Argonaut. Argonaut's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as it was not a final order, but its petition for removal was granted, rescinding an improperly issued joinder order and issuing a new order joining Argonaut as a party defendant. The Board clarified that contribution proceedings under Labor Code section 5500.5(e) can be initiated after a settlement and that Argonaut, having been notified, may not be bound by prior evidentiary records.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNatasha FanePrime Clinical SystemsInc.Everest National InsuranceArgonaut Insurance CompanyContributionLabor Code section 5500.5(b)Labor Code section 5500.5(e)Compromise and Release
References
0
Case No. ADJ7781989; ADJ8262771
Regular
Oct 03, 2013

MIRIAN GARCIA vs. COOPER COLD FOODS, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY as administrator for STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is granting reconsideration of its own prior decision and rescinding a July 23, 2013 decision that had overturned a prior finding of 2% permanent disability for applicant's right knee injury. The WCAB determined that its August 9, 2012 order granting reconsideration was improvidently granted because the applicant had already filed a successive and improper petition for reconsideration. Consequently, the prior order and the subsequent rescinded decision are vacated, and the applicant's petition for reconsideration is dismissed.

WCABReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityIndustrial InjurySuccessive PetitionImprovidently GrantedVacated
References
4
Case No. ADJ7703859
Regular
Aug 01, 2016

ELAINE CONNOR vs. SIERRA COUNCIL ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPENDENCE, CARE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order that found no Labor Code section 132a discrimination. The applicant's petition primarily focused on a potential attorney's fee award for a deposition under Labor Code section 5710, which the original order did not address. The WCJ's report recommended granting reconsideration to award the requested attorney's fees, acknowledging the omission was inadvertent. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition, amending the order to include the $1,557.50 attorney's fee award, and otherwise affirmed the original findings. The Board also dismissed the defendant's improper supplemental petition and denied their petition for sanctions against applicant's counsel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code 132aLabor Code 5710WCJAttorney's FeesDeposition FeesPetition for SanctionsWCAB Rule 10848Supplemental Filing
References
1
Case No. ADJ2501619 (OAK 0286955)
Regular
Nov 10, 2008

JAMES BRADFORD vs. MCMILLAN BROS. ELECTRIC, INC., PACIFIC EAGLE INSURANCE CO./tpa SEABRIGHT INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petitions for reconsideration, removal, and stay of execution. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed with the Appeals Board more than 25 days after the arbitrator's decision. The Board also lacked jurisdiction to grant the petition for removal or stay of execution, as these actions are not permitted for an arbitrator's decision in a Labor Code section 3201.5 carve-out case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for Stay of ExecutionUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 3201.5Carve-out CaseArbitrator's DecisionJurisdictionAppeals Board Rule 10865
References
4
Case No. ADJ300431 (FRE 0203618) ADJ1896245 (FRE 0203619) ADJ3576423 (FRE 0203620)
Regular
Jan 14, 2014

Sherrill Perkins vs. Fresno Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal but granted her petition for reconsideration. Applicant's 40-page petition for reconsideration violated the 25-page limit and lacked good cause for exceeding it. Therefore, the Board will dismiss the petition unless a compliant one is refiled within ten days, while simultaneously addressing the attorney's separate fee reconsideration. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances to justify removal and will proceed with reconsideration after compliance with filing rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWCJcumulative traumatemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityapportionmentpenalties
References
2
Case No. ADJ3314150 (LBO 0297361)
Regular
Nov 03, 2008

ANTHONY TENNISON vs. NATIONAL PLANT SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of the order denying a deposition, as it was not a final decision. However, removal was granted to allow for further proceedings at the trial level to determine if good cause exists for another deposition. Additionally, the Board granted reconsideration on its own motion and rescinded a subsequent award due to the WCJ exceeding their jurisdiction while a reconsideration petition was pending.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDepositionApplicantDefendantWCJLabor Code section 5900Final OrderDiscovery
References
5
Case No. ADJ2663736 (SFO 0480309), ADJ2844751 (SFO 0480630)
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

VILMA TENTNOWSKI vs. PEROTTI & CARRADE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior order granting reconsideration because the defendant's petition was not taken from a final order. Therefore, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied it as a petition for removal. A dissenting commissioner argued that reconsideration should not have been granted but believed the WCJ's original finding of 95% permanent disability was correct. The dissenter advocated for reinstating the original award based on existing medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPerotti & CarradeState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalImprovidently GrantedFinal OrderMedical Record DevelopmentPermanent DisabilityPsychiatric Disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ8531754
Regular
Mar 11, 2019

ARTURO TRUJILLO vs. TIC THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, THE HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's findings and orders, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision stemmed from a dispute over whether an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) interview with the applicant's wife and the applicant's provision of medical records at the AME's deposition constituted impermissible ex parte communication. The WCAB found that the interview with the wife was permissible as a collateral source to supplement the applicant's potentially impaired memory due to a brain injury, and that the provision of records at the deposition was not ex parte as the defendant was present. However, the WCAB remanded the case for the WCJ to determine if the applicant improperly provided information to the AME, as parties must agree on what information is provided to an AME.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorEx Parte CommunicationPetition for RemovalMedical-Legal ReportingCollateral InterviewApplicant's WifeDepositionsMedical RecordsSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code Section 4062.3
References
20
Case No. ADJ1534095 (LAO 0820188)
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

PAMELA MCMILLIN vs. XEROX CORPORATION; ACE USA, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an order dismissing its lien was untimely filed. Because the original petition was untimely, the administrative law judge lacked jurisdiction to rescind the dismissal order. Therefore, the Board rescinded the judge's order and dismissed the lien claimant's petition, leaving the original dismissal order in effect.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Rescinding DecisionLien ClaimLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06JurisdictionUntimely FilingCompromise and ReleaseWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ2217160
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

ALICIA NEGRETE vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendants' petition for reconsideration because a crucial document, their First Amended Petition for Penalties, was missing from the EAMS record. This missing petition was referenced in their petition for reconsideration and is essential for a complete understanding of the case. The Board will dismiss the defendants' petition for reconsideration unless they provide a copy of the referenced document within 15 days. All future filings must be sent directly to the Appeals Board Commissioners' office, not district offices or EAMS.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationFirst Amended Petition for PenaltiesCosts and SanctionsEAMSNotice of Intention to DismissAdmitted EvidenceStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesDecision After Reconsideration
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 27,620 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