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. ADJ10652805
Regular
Nov 16, 2018

JESUS ARELLANO vs. RJP FRAMING, INC.; REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was taken from a non-final interlocutory order. The order at issue, which closed discovery, did not determine substantive rights, liabilities, or a threshold issue fundamental to the claim. Therefore, it was not a final order as required for reconsideration under Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903. The Board also found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if the petition were treated as a request for removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueRemoval
References
Case No. ADJ10648626
Regular
Apr 27, 2018

LUBIA CASTANEDA vs. ELITE SUBLIMATION, INC., REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed Lubia Castaneda's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's decision on venue was an interlocutory procedural issue, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, it was not a proper subject for reconsideration. The petition for removal was also denied as Castaneda failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ10069954
Regular
Dec 21, 2015

MAURO PEREZ vs. FAMILY TREE SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was based on an interlocutory order that did not determine substantive rights or a threshold issue. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would likely be an adequate remedy later. The defendants' procedural objection regarding venue was resolved by their filing of a verified answer.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034) ADJ1776170 (MON 0224335)
Regular
Feb 10, 2016

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT FOOD SERVICES, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration and removal that was dismissed and denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board found that the WCJ's decision addressed only an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary issue, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as premature. The petition for removal was also denied, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ10708028
Regular

GLADYS MEZA vs. AMERICAN HI-FI INDUSTRIAL 26, INC., GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Gladys Meza's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural/evidentiary decision. The Board also denied her Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision ultimately issues. These decisions were based on the reasoning provided in the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueSubstantive LiabilityThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ10365809 ADJ9413677 ADJ9231147 ADJ9414072
Regular
Oct 06, 2017

GINA LUTTENEGGER vs. CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Gina Luttenegger's petition for reconsideration because it was taken from an interlocutory order regarding the disqualification of an agreed medical examiner, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied her petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued. The applicant can still request a supplemental report from the AME.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueThreshold IssueAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Substantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ7894038 (MF), ADJ9807148
Regular
May 08, 2018

PEDRO GOMEZ vs. RALPH'S GROCERIES; Permissibly Self-Insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was not timely filed from a final order, as the WCJ's decision addressed only an intermediate procedural issue. The Petition for Removal was also denied, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. This ruling reinforces that interlocutory decisions in workers' compensation cases are not subject to immediate appellate review. Therefore, the case proceeds on its procedural merits without early intervention.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ9772360
Regular
Feb 26, 2015

BROCK MACON vs. THE SALVATION ARMY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was taken from a non-final, interlocutory procedural order. The WCAB found that the order did not determine any substantive rights or liabilities, nor a threshold issue fundamental to the claim. Treating the petition as one for removal, the WCAB denied it as removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated. Therefore, the applicant's attempt to challenge the intermediate decision was unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ11568028
Regular
Mar 03, 2020

STEPHANIE MAHONEY vs. YMCA; TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE, administered by SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final, interlocutory order regarding venue. The WCAB reiterated that reconsideration is only proper for final orders that determine substantive rights or threshold issues. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate such an extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's decision on venue was deemed an intermediate procedural ruling, not subject to appeal at this stage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,449 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