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. ADJ8050106 ADJ9468937 ADJ9154032
Regular
Nov 03, 2018

ANTONIO VAZQUEZ vs. CARSON TRAILERS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was taken from an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision issues. The order pertains to multiple cases involving Antonio Vazquez and Carson Trailers. The WCJ's order directing the use of a specific bill reviewer was deemed an evidentiary/procedural matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderEvidentiary OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
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. 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. 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. ADJ2558516 (VNO 0339174) ADJ4123268 (VNO 0339173)
Regular
May 20, 2015

PAULA RANGEL vs. PALOS VERDES DEVELOPERS, CIGA by its servicing facility, SEDGWICK CMS for FREMONT INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order compelling the service of medical-legal reports, not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB noted that the defendant's arguments regarding procedural due process were unfounded as they had a hearing and opportunity to be heard. Finally, the Board admonished the defendant's representative for misstating facts, citing outdated authority, and filing improper petitions, warning of future sanctions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling ServiceMedical/Legal ReportingLien ClaimantProcedural Due ProcessInterlocutory OrderExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. VNO 0486618 VNO 0486619
Regular
Feb 05, 2008

GRISELDA LEYVA vs. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it sought review of an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The order in question voided a conditional payment order for a lien claim due to apparent service and filing issues. The Board noted that the lien claimant's rights can still be addressed at a scheduled hearing or through a subsequent filing.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder VoidingConditional Order to Pay Lien ClaimDue ProcessOfficial Address RecordInterlocutory Procedural OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiability
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. ADJ4201900 (OAK 0256105) ADJ1515754 (OAK 0212526) ADJ868359 (OAK 0282983)
Regular
Feb 27, 2017

GRACE BEATTY vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration. The petitions sought to revisit a Minute Order that placed the case off calendar, which is not a final order. A petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a final order that determines substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the WCAB found the petitions procedurally improper and dismissed them.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOff Calendar OrderCompromise and ReleaseSubsequent Injury Benefits Trust FundNon-Final OrderLabor CodeFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiability
References
Case No. ADJ1047343
Regular
Dec 17, 2015

HELEN WILSON vs. CHEMOIL CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on the fact that the petition sought reconsideration of a non-final order, which is not permissible under California Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903. The Board clarified that only final orders, which determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, are subject to reconsideration. The WCJ's decision in this instance was deemed an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary ruling, thus not a final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsWCJ
References
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
Showing 1-10 of 9,289 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