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
5
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
4
Case No. ADJ10563858
Regular
Jun 15, 2018

DARREN ANDERSON vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order. The Board also denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would warrant this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, adopted by the Board, explained that the order at issue only addressed procedural or evidentiary issues, not substantive rights or liabilities. Consequently, both petitions were denied as procedurally improper.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ4305848 (VNO 0500451) ADJ1421355 (VNO 0500448) ADJ3686141 (LAO 0853683) ADJ1772068 (LAO 0853682)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

ROSA MACIAS vs. GLENRIDGE CENTER, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely filed and not from a final order. The Board also initiated removal on its own motion to issue a notice of intention to assess sanctions against the lien claimant for failing to appear at trial and filing a procedurally deficient petition. Sanctions are warranted due to the lien claimant's failure to comply with procedural obligations and filing a frivolous petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of IntentionCompromise and ReleaseBoard Rule 10562Untimely Filing
References
10
Case No. ADJ3875612 (LAO 0875949), ADJ4655048 (LAO 0875947), ADJ3780834 (LAO 0875984)
Regular
Aug 26, 2019

HUGO HERNANDEZ vs. FOX HILLS TOWING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a WCJ's statement that MedNet's lien claim was not dismissed. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding that the WCJ's statement concerned an interlocutory procedural issue, not a final order. Reconsideration is only permissible from final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities. No formal order of dismissal was ever issued for MedNet's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLien ClaimMedNetNotice of Intent to Issue SanctionsFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionDismissalRemoval
References
0
Case No. ADJ11077369
Regular
May 24, 2019

TRANSITO HERNANDEZ vs. READY PAC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSEETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final, interlocutory procedural order. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant failed to demonstrate that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the Board upheld the WCJ's decision regarding the procedural issue.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONPETITION FOR REMOVALFINAL ORDERINTERLOCUTORY DECISIONSUBSTANTIVE RIGHTTHRESHOLD ISSUEIRREPARABLE HARMSUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICEEXTRAORDINARY REMEDY
References
6
Case No. ADJ7552724, ADJ7584841
Regular
Sep 17, 2013

AGUSTIN NAVARRO vs. ALLIED WASTE OF SACRAMENTO, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of a prior order that itself granted reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because reconsideration can only be sought from a final order, decision, or award, not from interlocutory procedural orders. An order granting reconsideration without resolving the underlying issues is not considered final. Therefore, the petition challenging the order granting reconsideration was dismissed as procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLab. Code§ 5900Granting ReconsiderationDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ7552724ADJ7584841
References
0
Case No. ADJ10095977
Regular
Jul 06, 2018

LINDA SHINTAKU vs. PICO MACOM, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Linda Shintaku's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal occurred because the petition sought reconsideration of a non-final order, as only "final" orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues are subject to reconsideration. The WCAB clarified that interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions are not considered final. Therefore, the petition, addressing an intermediate issue, was dismissed as improperly filed.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderDismissalSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsIntermediate ordersRymer v. Hagler
References
4
Case No. ADJ8628783, ADJ7939627
Regular
Nov 30, 2017

JOSE MANUEL MORA vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is ultimately issued. This order signifies that the applicant's attempt to appeal an intermediate procedural ruling has been unsuccessful.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ1664277 (BAK 0147354), ADJ3615708 (BAK 0147668), ADJ2881957 (BAK 0147353)
Regular
Apr 24, 2015

Francisco Casillas vs. San Joaquin Valley Transportation, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Francisco Casillas's petitions for reconsideration and removal because no final order had been issued. The WCJ rescinded a notice of intent to bifurcate claims after the defendant objected, a procedural step that does not allow for immediate appellate review. Reconsideration and removal are only available from final orders, not interlocutory procedural decisions. The Board also admonished applicant's counsel for misfiling and wasting judicial resources.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNotice of IntentBifurcationLabor Code section 132aSerious and Willful MisconductFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 10,848 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