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. ADJ10605965
Regular
May 07, 2019

BERNABE RAMIREZ vs. RICHIN TRACKING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it sought review of an interim procedural order, not a final decision, and therefore was not ripe for reconsideration. The Board also denied the claimant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would justify this extraordinary remedy. The original order compelling a lien claimant representative to appear at a status conference was a proper procedural step following the denial of a vague medical information petition. The subsequent representation change did not invalidate the prior order or warrant removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalInterim Procedural OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightsLiabilityThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ6913723
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

ZACHARY GRAM vs. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order changing venue was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board then granted removal on its own motion to clarify the record and resolve conflicting procedural orders regarding the venue change. Specifically, the Board vacated prior orders, including an order granting a venue change and a subsequent order rescinding it. The matter is returned to the trial level for a determination on the defendant's request for a venue change.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationVenueLabor Code Section 5310Interlocutory OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmRescind
References
7
Case No. FRE 0176262
Regular
Jun 03, 2008

YOLANDA MARQUEZ vs. COMP USA, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the prior decision it sought to review was an interim procedural order, not a final determination of substantive rights. This interim order deferred issues of permanent disability, apportionment, and attorney's fees, allowing for further development of the record. The Board found that clarification of the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion on apportionment was necessary in the interests of justice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderAggrieved PartyBurden of Proof
References
8
Case No. ADJ8205078; ADJ8205102; ADJ8506184; ADJ8838109; ADJ8838110; ADJ8838111
Regular
Dec 30, 2013

ELIAS LOPEZ vs. AMERICAN RED CROSS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as the WCJ's order was an interim procedural decision, not a final determination of liability. The Board also denied Defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no irreparable harm shown. The WCJ's order to take cases off calendar was upheld due to the Declaration of Readiness to Proceed not listing all cases and insufficient substantial evidence. Defendant was admonished for filing the wrong procedural remedy and advised to properly list all cases in future filings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationDENYING REMOVALDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJsubstantial evidenceirreparable harminterim ordersprocedural decisions
References
2
Case No. ADJ2869065 (LBO 0313061) ADJ3077375 (VNO 0308945) ADJ2422782 (VNO 0299504)
Regular
Jan 05, 2009

LARRY E. MOORE vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

The WCAB dismissed the applicant’s petition for reconsideration of the WCJ’s order continuing the matter to a status conference, as it was an interim procedural order, not a final order. The WCAB also admonished applicant’s counsel for making misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900Labor Code Section 5902RemovalLabor Code Section 5310Significant Prejudice
References
12
Case No. ADJ9341119, ADJ9340152
Regular
Jul 21, 2015

ROBERT BOYD (Deceased), JANICE BOYD vs. KELLY SERVICES, ESIS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANIES

This order dismisses a petition for reconsideration and denies a petition for removal. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the underlying decision was an interim procedural order, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities, thus disqualifying it from reconsideration. The Board also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and admonished the petitioner's counsel for filing a petition from a non-final order. This action highlights the distinction between final decisions and interlocutory orders in workers' compensation proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdequacy of Reconsideration
References
6
Case No. ADJ6843599
Regular
Dec 03, 2012

MICHAEL FREITAS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the Findings and Order striking the Agreed Medical Evaluator's report was an interim procedural order, not a final decision on the merits. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant from the order. The defendant's contention that the striking of a supplemental report was improper was not persuasive, as the AME's own delay contributed to the issue. A subsequent order corrected a clerical error regarding the date of the Board's initial decision.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Rule 38Untimely ReportStriking AMEInterim Procedural OrderFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5310
References
11
Case No. ADJ2427648
Regular
Jul 13, 2009

MARIA ROWENA MABINI vs. HOLLYWOOD PARK CASINO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order, which took the matter off calendar to pursue AME and QME procedures, was procedural and not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding that they failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant argued that the WCJ erred by ordering AME/QME procedures when treatment was managed under a healthcare organization contract. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, agreeing that the procedural order did not qualify for reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff CalendarAMEQMEHealth Care OrganizationLabor Code 4600.3Interlocutory OrderFinal Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ9509583
Regular
May 23, 2017

STEVEN THOMAS vs. CITY OF STOCKTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Stockton's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that the applicant's petition for reconsideration was taken from an interim order, not a final decision. While some issues were finalized, the order to develop the record on permanent partial disability was procedural. The Board also denied removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant from the order to develop the record.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedInterim OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueRemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
9
Case No. ADJ7214041
Regular
Jan 23, 2013

STEPHEN SHELDON vs. BUTTE COUNTY FIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Butte County Fire's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found the petition was improperly filed because it was directed at an interim order returning the case to the trial level for further development of the medical record. Such an order is not a "final" order that determines substantive rights or liabilities, and therefore is not subject to reconsideration. The substantive arguments of the petition were not addressed due to this procedural defect.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderGrant ReconsiderationRescinded DecisionFurther DevelopmentMedical RecordBurden of ProofIndustrial InjurySubstantive Right
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 24,613 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