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. ADJ7392875
Regular
Mar 27, 2015

PARGAT TOOR vs. YELLOW CAB, YORK INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pargat Toor's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. The WCAB clarified that a petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a "final" order, which determines substantive rights, liabilities, or a threshold issue fundamental to the claim. The WCJ's decision in this case addressed only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, thus not meeting the criteria for a final order. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderDismissalSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProceduralEvidentiaryRemoval
References
4
Case No. ADJ10134260
Regular
Oct 22, 2018

JESUS SANCHEZ vs. MONARCH VALLEY FARMING, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal by a party seeking to challenge an interlocutory procedural order from a workers' compensation judge. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the order was not a "final" decision determining substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for this extraordinary remedy. Therefore, the WCAB affirmed that the challenged order was merely an intermediate procedural ruling not subject to immediate appeal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
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. ADJ6913723
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

ZACHARY GRAM vs. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order changing venue was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board then granted removal on its own motion to clarify the record and resolve conflicting procedural orders regarding the venue change. Specifically, the Board vacated prior orders, including an order granting a venue change and a subsequent order rescinding it. The matter is returned to the trial level for a determination on the defendant's request for a venue change.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationVenueLabor Code Section 5310Interlocutory OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmRescind
References
7
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. ADJ9113213, ADJ9116878, ADJ9116879
Regular
Apr 06, 2015

Patricia Doumar vs. Pathways Home Health and Hospice, Alpha Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Patricia Doumar's petition for reconsideration. This was because the petition sought to review a non-final, interlocutory order. The Board clarified that reconsideration is only permissible for final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. The order in question was deemed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary decision, thus not eligible for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderDismissalSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionEvidentiary decisionWCJ
References
0
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
5
Case No. ADJ9534817
Regular
Mar 08, 2016

AARON HENDERSON vs. FAIRVIEW FORD, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Aaron Henderson's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. A petition for reconsideration is only permitted from a final order that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or a fundamental threshold issue. The WCJ's decision in this case addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter, thus it was not a final order. Furthermore, the WCAB found no basis for removal, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderWCJ reportSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutory proceduralEvidentiary decisionsRemovalSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ4097644 (ANA 0411679)
Regular
Dec 03, 2012

ALICIA CORDOVA DE CARRANZA vs. MARRIOT INTERNATIONAL, MARRIOT CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Marriott International's Petition for Reconsideration. The petition challenged an administrative law judge's order allowing lien claimants additional time to serve exhibits. The Board found the order to be an intermediate, procedural ruling, not a final determination of substantive rights. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was improperly filed as only final orders are subject to such review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLien TrialExhibitsProof of ServiceCompromise and ReleasePre-Trial Conference StatementAdministrative Law JudgeEvidentiary Order
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 24,598 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