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. ADJ3755642 (OAK 0305976) ADJ3452882 (OAK 0305978)
Regular
Jan 27, 2015

THOMAS OLENHOUSE vs. NESTLE ICE CREAM, SEDGWICK CMS, FRUIT-A-FREEZE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This is an interim order from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board correcting a clerical error. The Board's prior Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration, served on December 6, 2015, incorrectly stated the service date. The corrected service date is now January 6, 2015. The case remains pending reconsideration by the Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardInterim OrderClerical ErrorPetition for ReconsiderationDate of ServiceSupplemental ProceedingsOffice of the CommissionersSan FranciscoAmendedLaw Offices of Mark A. Vickness
References
1
Case No. ADJ236966 (MON 0309477)
Regular
Jan 27, 2015

HERMELINDA CLARA vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves a clerical error in a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board is issuing an interim order to correct the service date of its Opinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration from December 6, 2015, to January 6, 2015. The error was identified as a simple clerical mistake. The matter remains pending before the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardInterim OrderClerical ErrorPetition for ReconsiderationDate of ServiceSupplemental ProceedingsOffice of the CommissionersAmendedRonnie G. CaplaneFrank M. Brass
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2009

In re Moona C.

An order of disposition from the Family Court, New York County, entered on October 26, 2009, was unanimously affirmed on appeal. This order brought up for review a fact-finding order from May 1, 2009, which determined that the respondent mother neglected her children. The appeal from the fact-finding order was dismissed as it was subsumed by the appeal from the dispositional order. The court also noted that the respondent's challenge to an interim visitation suspension was moot and not properly before the court. Furthermore, the Family Court's decision to permit one of the children, Robina C., to testify in camera was upheld, as it appropriately balanced the respondent's due process rights with the child's emotional well-being by allowing contemporaneous cross-examination by counsel. The affidavit of the social worker supporting the in camera testimony was found sufficient despite challenges to her expertise.

Family LawChild NeglectParental RightsIn Camera TestimonyDue ProcessVisitation RightsAppellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional OrderMootness
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

On Time Staffing, LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance

On December 23, 2010, On Time Staffing, LLC and On Time Industrial Staffing, Inc. petitioned the court to vacate an interim arbitration award rendered against them in an arbitration with National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA. The arbitration concerned retrospectively rated workers' compensation insurance provided by National Union to On Time, governed by a Payment Agreement with a broad arbitration clause. The arbitration panel issued an order requiring On Time to post pre-hearing security of $312,188, which On Time challenged, alleging the arbitrators exceeded their powers under FAA § 10(a)(4) and committed misconduct under FAA § 10(a)(3) by not conducting a full evidentiary hearing. The District Court denied the petition, affirming the arbitration panel's inherent authority to order interim relief to preserve the arbitration's integrity and finding that On Time received a fundamentally fair hearing. The court concluded that the panel's decision was within its powers and did not constitute misconduct.

Arbitration LawFederal Arbitration ActInterim ReliefPre-hearing SecurityVacating Arbitration AwardArbitrator AuthorityArbitrator MisconductWorkers' Compensation InsuranceContract InterpretationDue Process
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
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. ADJ9551348
Regular
Jan 20, 2015

JOSE JAIME GARCIA vs. MOLDEX-METRIC, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses a Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed for an interlocutory order, not a final one that determines substantive rights. The Board clarified that only final orders are subject to reconsideration under Labor Code § 5900. While treating the petition as a Petition for Removal, it would also be denied. The Board admonished applicant's counsel for failing to distinguish between final and interim orders.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightsLiabilitiesPetition for RemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationApplicant's CounselTimely ServiceOrder Granting Change of Venue
References
3
Case No. ADJ600780
Regular
Nov 03, 2008

CONNIE BROOKS vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT; permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interim order, not a final decision, and therefore not subject to reconsideration. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as the interim order did not preclude a full adjudication of the defendant's claims. Consequently, the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJtemporary disabilityoverpaymentcredit rightspermanent and stationarydue processirreparable harminterim order
References
10
Case No. ADJ10483780
Regular
Feb 01, 2018

MARIA ALBARRAN vs. COASTAL VINEYARD, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration or removal of an interim order granting the defendant an employer's credit against a third-party settlement. The applicant contended the credit was improperly awarded without a hearing, especially given contested issues like employer negligence. The Appeals Board dismissed the removal petition as premature but granted reconsideration. They rescinded the interim order, finding the applicant was denied due process by not having a fair opportunity to be heard on the substantive issues. The case is remanded for further proceedings and a new decision at the trial level.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationInterim OrderThird-Party CreditRespondeat SuperiorEmployer NegligenceDue ProcessAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ8453714
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

STEVE CAGLE vs. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE GROUP

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal of an interim order that found a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) reports inadmissible due to a mistaken belief in the QME's retirement. The Appeals Board granted removal because the WCJ's order was based on an erroneous factual premise regarding the QME's availability. The Board found that upholding the order would cause substantial prejudice and irreparable harm, and rescinded the findings and order for further medical evaluation.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrderPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQME Reitersubstantial evidenceirreparable harmAgreed Medical Evaluatorsubstantial prejudicerescindedDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 24,053 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