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. ADJ17569878
Regular
Apr 28, 2025

Marvin Pineda Contreras vs. Southwest Plastering, Inc.; Zenith Insurance Company

Lien Claimant Oracle Imaging Riverside sought reconsideration of an Order Dismissing Lien issued on December 23, 2024, by the WCJ, following its alleged failure to object to a notice of intention to dismiss. Oracle contended it had not received proper notice of the hearing date, attributing this to the Appeals Board not sending notifications to its P.O. Box. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as premature, returning the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the Petition as one seeking to set aside the Order Dismissing Lien. The Board noted that any aggrieved party may seek reconsideration after the WCJ issues a subsequent decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantNotice of IntentionFailure to AttendProper NoticeBad AddressReport and RecommendationCompromise and Release AgreementOrder Approving Compromise and Release
References
Case No. ADJ1 0544723
Regular
Feb 21, 2017

CARLOS BARRAZA AYON vs. GILL RANCH COMPANY, INC.; ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Notice of Benefit Ineligibility regarding a Return to Work Supplement, which was denied due to untimely application. The applicant argued inadequate notice of their right to a supplemental job displacement voucher (SJDV). The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as premature, finding the Director's decision was not yet subject to review at the trial level. The matter was returned to the trial level to first determine the applicant's entitlement to an SJDV, as their underlying case settlement did not address this issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReturn to Work Supplement ProgramSupplemental Job Displacement VoucherNotice of Benefit IneligibilityPetition for ReconsiderationPrematureTrial LevelAdjudicate EntitlementCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5900(a)
References
Case No. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ3362095 (RIV 0081256)
Regular
Sep 12, 2011

RAMON CAMACHO vs. BROWN DATES GARDEN, FIRSTCOMP OMAHA

This case concerns defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order allowing a lien claim. The defendant argued inadequate notice of the lien trial and the subsequent order, and that the order was based on a repealed regulation. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, noting the late discovery of the petition but applying due process principles for the reconsideration timeline. The Board rescinded the original order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing Lien ClaimPrime Orthopedicsinadequate noticelien trialfax serviceCCP 1013(e)repealed regulationCCR Title 8 Section 10563statutory time for reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ3057068
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

Cecilio Torres vs. Holbrook Construction, Inc., Lincoln General Insurance Company, American Claims Management, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded a prior decision, and returned the case for further proceedings. The applicant claimed a back and other injuries, alleging he notified his supervisor of the incident and subsequent pain before termination. The Board found the applicant met his burden to prove he provided sufficient notice of injury to his supervisor prior to termination, fulfilling the notice requirement of Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). Defendants failed to rebut the applicant's evidence that he reported the injury and requested medical treatment from his supervisor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Notice of InjuryTerminationPreponderance of EvidenceSupervisor NoticeActual NoticeEmployer KnowledgeWCJ Decision
References
Case No. ADJ3345507
Regular
Sep 18, 2014

ROBERT MOOS vs. CITY OF INGLEWOOD

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an order disallowing their lien. The claimant argued they did not receive notice of a lien conference, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) record indicated proper service by mail. The WCAB upheld the administrative law judge's decision, presuming the notice was received and that the lien claimant failed to rebut this presumption with sufficient evidence. As the lien claimant also failed to object to a subsequent Notice of Intent to Dismiss their lien, reconsideration was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantNotice of Lien ConferenceService of ProcessPresumption of ReceiptEvidentiary CodeWCABWCJOrder Disallowing LienNotice of Intent to Dismiss
References
Case No. ADJ8613826
Regular
May 02, 2016

WALTER D. VILLATORO vs. POTENTIAL INDUSTRIES, ZURICH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded an order dismissing lien claimant Innovative Orthopedic Services' lien. The lien claimant argued it was denied due process because it never received notice of a lien conference or a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NIT). The WCAB found that the lien claimant's due process rights were violated due to a lack of record of proper service of the NIT and any further lien conference notice. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissCompromise and ReleaseDue processNotice of Lien ConferenceAdministrative law judgeRescindVoid ab initio
References
Case No. ADJ9077157
Regular
Jan 24, 2017

JOHN BIRTWELL vs. OAKLAND ATHLETICS, ACE, USA administered by SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an order dismissing Mesa Medical Group's lien. The dismissal occurred because no objection was received to a Notice of Intention (NIT) for failure to appear at a lien conference. Although the objection was filed by CA Med Management, which had not formally filed a notice of representation, the WCAB found that due process requires a hearing on the merits of the lien claim. The case is returned to the trial level to determine if Mesa Medical Group has sufficient grounds for relief from its non-appearance.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention (NIT)Lien ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)Objection to Notice of IntentionCA Med ManagementNotice of RepresentationLabor Code section 4903.6(b)WCAB Rule 10774.5
References
Case No. ADJ2468136
Regular
Feb 19, 2009

DAVID JAQUES vs. RYDELL AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order awarding applicant's attorney Labor Code section 5710 fees. Defendant sought reconsideration, arguing inadequate notice and that the fees were unwarranted as they did not request the applicant's deposition. The Board rescinded the prior order and remanded the case to the WCJ for further proceedings, finding that the defendant did not receive adequate notice. The Board took no position on the merits of the fee entitlement.

WCABRYDELL AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATIONINSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WESTLabor Code section 5710attorney's feesdepositioninadequate noticeCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 10349Petition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendation
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,546 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