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. ADJ9139200
Regular
Dec 11, 2015

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Matthew Bakes' petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be based on "final" orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions. The WCJ's decision at issue here only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter. Thus, it was not a final order, and the petition was procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsRemoval
References
Case No. SAU10030321
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

BRIAN DUARTE vs. ALL ABOUT PAINT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Brian Duarte's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, decision, or award. A final order must determine a substantive right or liability, or a fundamental threshold issue, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary matters. The WCJ's order consolidating cases, designating a master file, staying liens, and noticing a hearing was deemed an interlocutory procedural order and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionOrder of ConsolidationDesignation of Master File
References
Case No. ADJ9640872
Regular
Mar 21, 2017

ESPERENZA LOPEZ VARGAS vs. ELVIRA SANDOVAL FLC, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. The Board clarified that petitions for reconsideration can only be filed against final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. Interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not considered final. Additionally, the petition itself was deemed deficient for failing to state specific grounds or cite the record, violating procedural requirements.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderDismissalSubstantive rightThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsLabor CodeAppeals Board Rules
References
Case No. ADJ10330567, ADJ10509711
Regular
Jul 17, 2017

FRANCISCO SALAZAR vs. NATURE'S BEST DISTRIBUTION, LLC, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY, TOKIO MARINE MANAGEMENT & INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and removal. The WCAB found the judge's order rescinding a compromise and release agreement was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the disputed settlement addendum. The defendant's argument that the rescinding order lacked substantial evidence was not addressed as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

WCABReconsiderationOrder RescindingCompromise and ReleaseJoint Order ApprovingPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJSubstantial EvidenceFinal Order
References
Case No. ADJ2 709854 (OXN 0142376) ADJ1 143803 (OXN 0128653)
Regular
Nov 25, 2015

SALVADOR PAZ vs. MARTINEZ PAINTING & WALL COVERING, MB PAINTING, CIGA for CREDIT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CIGA for UNITED PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, ACE USA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory procedural or evidentiary order. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The WCJ's report, which detailed these reasons, was adopted and incorporated by the Board. Therefore, the Board dismissed the reconsideration and denied the removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProceduralEvidentiary
References
Case No. ADJ11397770
Regular
Oct 14, 2019

ROSALINA SANDOVAL vs. W.S. BALKHI CORPORATION dba MCDONALDS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involved an applicant's petition for reconsideration or removal related to a WCJ's Minute Order setting the case for trial. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition because the order was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. Furthermore, the removal petition was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration remains an adequate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural OrderInterim Procedural OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ7419891
Regular
Apr 08, 2016

LUCELY ESTRADA vs. CHARLIE ROCKET, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order, as it addressed only an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary issue. Furthermore, the Board denied the Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report was adopted and incorporated to support these decisions. Therefore, the applicant's attempts to appeal the intermediate ruling were unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJfinal ordersubstantive rightliabilitythreshold issueinterlocutoryprocedural
References
Case No. ADJ3646739
Regular
Aug 14, 2017

MARIA LUISA ACEVES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board dismissed Maria Luisa Aceves' Petition for Reconsideration because it sought review of a non-final, interlocutory procedural or evidentiary order, which is not appealable. The Board also denied her Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ's report, adopted by the Board, detailed why the order was not final and why removal was not warranted. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as to reconsideration and denied as to removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProceduralEvidentiaryRemovalExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ9714802, ADJ10132748
Regular
Apr 12, 2016

GINA CRANE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the administrative judge's order granting a new PQME panel was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the defendant's supplemental petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would justify this extraordinary remedy. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation judge's report.

PQME panelPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJfinal orderinterlocutorysubstantive rightliabilitythreshold issueprocedural
References
Case No. ADJ1117931 (LAO 0743685) ADJ1499748 (LAO 0743689) ADJ4716197 (LAO 0743687)
Regular
May 26, 2010

CARMEN LICEA vs. ZACKY FARMS; Administered By BUCKEYE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying the admission of additional evidence and witnesses was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final determination of substantive rights. The WCAB denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no showing of prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the applicant's petition to disqualify the WCJ, noting the lack of a required affidavit and finding no evidence of bias or enmity. Ultimately, all of the applicant's post-order filings were denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCarmen LiceaZacky FarmsBuckeye Claims AdministratorsPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJDr. Procciwork function impairment form
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,713 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