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. ADJ20165742
Regular
Jul 18, 2025

DEBRA SILVEIRA vs. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INCORPORATED

Applicant Debra Silveira sought reconsideration of an April 29, 2025 Findings of Fact and Order, which deemed a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel valid despite being requested by defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Incorporated, with an incorrect claim number. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior decision, and substituted new findings. The Board ruled that strict compliance with Administrative Director Rule 30 regarding complete and correct claim numbers for QME panel requests is required to ensure due process and prevent conflicting or overlapping panels. Consequently, the defendant's panel (7773036) was deemed invalid, and the applicant's panel (7775940) was declared valid.

QME panel validityincorrect claim numberAD Rule 30due processadministrative law judgePetition for Reconsiderationremoval standardDWC Medical Unitprocedural defectinadvertent error
References
11
Case No. ADJ20067702
Regular
Jun 13, 2025

NICOLE TRIPLETT vs. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC., SEDGWICK CONCORD

Applicant Nicole Triplett sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order that reduced her attorney's fees from 15% to 10% of a $15,000 settlement with FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. The Appeals Board granted the petition, finding that the WCJ did not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning for the fee reduction and failed to give the petitioner due process by not allowing an opportunity to present evidence regarding the value of legal services. Consequently, the March 13, 2025 order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney's FeesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ OrderFee Disclosure StatementLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemDue Process
References
12
Case No. ADJ608253 (ANA 0404124)
Regular
Mar 09, 2009

JAIME O. HERNANDEZ vs. ADVANTAGE GROUND TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Jaime O. Hernandez versus Advantage Ground Transportation and State Compensation Insurance Fund. This decision allows the Board more time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented. The reconsideration is necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the record for a just and reasoned final decision. Pending further proceedings, all communications should be directed to the Board's P.O. Box in San Francisco.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdvantage Ground TransportationState Compensation Insurance FundStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesDecision After ReconsiderationFurther proceedingsService by mail
References
0
Case No. ADJ10559387 (VNO 0423516)
Regular
Apr 13, 2020

DAVE ZADA vs. ALPRO MILL WORKING, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition to be skeletal, lacking specific grounds, failure to cite the record, and crucially, it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. No timely cure or explanation was provided for the unverified petition. The WCAB also noted that it would have denied the petition on the merits based on the WCJ's report had procedural defects not led to dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesWCJ ReportVacating GrantDismissing PetitionVerification RequirementMaterial Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. ADJ10285745
Regular
Jun 17, 2019

MELINDA SANCHEZ vs. MERITAGE HEALTHCARE, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Melinda Sanchez's Petition for Reconsideration because it was "skeletal." The petition failed to meet the legal requirements of Labor Code § 5902 and Appeals Board Rules 10842, 10846, and 10852, which mandate specific details on grounds for reconsideration and evidence relied upon. Specifically, the petition did not clearly state the grounds for reconsideration or cite the record with specificity. Consequently, the WCAB found the petition subject to dismissal and would have denied it on the merits had it not been procedurally deficient.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionLabor Code Section 5902Appeals Board RulesRule 10842Rule 10846Rule 10852SpecificityRecord ReferencesLegal Principles
References
8
Case No. ADJ10680590, ADJ10680591
Regular
Oct 12, 2017

HYUNMI KIM vs. SHERRY PRECISION DENTAL ART, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was "skeletal" and failed to meet the specific requirements of Labor Code section 5902 and Appeals Board Rules. The petition did not detail the grounds for reconsideration, cite specific evidence, or fairly state all material evidence relative to the disputed findings. Despite the WCAB acknowledging the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE made the order final, the petition's lack of specificity was sufficient grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for failing to comply with procedural requirements for seeking reconsideration.

ADJ10680590ADJ10680591WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionFinal OrderAOE/COELabor Code 5902Rule 10842Rule 10846
References
8
Case No. ADJ7491926 ADJ7174640
Regular
Apr 22, 2011

JACQUELIN ESCALANTE vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, PMA GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) that settled applicant's back injury claim for $5,150.00. The Board found the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely because service of the OACR was defective due to an incorrect address. Consequently, the OACR was rescinded, and the case is returned to the trial level to determine if the compromise should be reinstated, requiring the applicant to show grounds like fraud or mistake.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryDefective ServiceTimelinessRescindedTrial LevelEquitableFraud
References
6
Case No. ADJ1058308 (VNO 0482296)
Regular
May 28, 2013

DONNA DeRUSSY vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, TRAVELERS INSURANCE, SAFETY NATIONAL, FRONTIER INSURANCE

This case involves a workers' compensation appeal where the defendants seek reconsideration of a prior award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The primary grounds for this decision were that the defendants were denied due process by not being given an opportunity to cross-examine the rating rater and that the award relied on outdated medical reports. The WCAB also suggested obtaining current medical evaluations due to the time elapsed since the original reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardAttorney FeesPermanent Disability RatingApportionmentIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineTreating PhysiciansMedical Reports
References
6
Case No. STK 0172263, STK 0175293
Regular
Oct 15, 2007

FRANK LIBERINI vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to clarify an award finding the employer violated Labor Code §132a by discriminating against the applicant due to industrial injuries. The WCAB affirmed the original decision but amended it to explicitly include lost job benefits and attorney costs, directing the parties to adjust these amounts with trial level jurisdiction reserved. The employer's petition for reconsideration was deficient for failing to detail the specific grounds and evidence supporting their claims of business necessity and lack of prima facie discrimination.

Labor Code § 132adiscriminatory actionunlawful discriminationjob reinstatementincreased compensationback wagesprima facie casebusiness necessitydisparate treatmentjob benefits
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 16,475 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