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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2011

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a conditional preclusion order issued in October 2006. The defendant's answer was deemed stricken due to their failure to comply with discovery requirements within 30 days, making the order self-executing. The court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance or a meritorious defense. The order was modified to prevent the plaintiff from litigating an accident-related disability claim subsequent to September 5, 2008, citing a preclusive Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Appellate Division panel unanimously concurred with the modified decision, affirming the striking of the defendant's answer while imposing a limitation on the plaintiff's disability claims.

Discovery SanctionsConditional Preclusion OrderWorkers' Compensation BoardAccident-related DisabilitySummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentMeritorious DefenseSelf-Executing OrderAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dubinsky v. Joseph Love, Inc.

A motion seeking an order to affirm a prior order and judgment and to vacate a previous determination and order of the court was considered and denied by the judicial panel. The panel included Justices Martin, Townley, Callahan, and Peck.

Motion PracticeOrder AffirmanceJudgment AffirmancePrior DeterminationOrder VacaturJudicial Panel DecisionAppellate Review
References
1
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. ADJ4522242 (VNO 0452421) ADJ522765 (VNO 0452422)
Regular
May 26, 2011

PAUL ALLGOOD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted lien claimant's petition for removal to rescind an Administrative Law Judge's order compelling Dr. Baden's appearance at trial. The Board found no good cause was established for Dr. Baden's direct examination and that the order was not a final, appealable decision. Removal was granted to prevent prejudice to the lien claimant, and the order for Dr. Baden's appearance was rescinded. The Board also dismissed the lien claimant's prior petition for reconsideration.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ OrderDr. Scott BadenGood CauseMedical WitnessDirect ExaminationWritten ReportsBoard Rule 10606
References
11
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. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant County of Los Angeles petitioned to set aside an order compelling payment of $14,500 to lien claimant, The 4600 Group. The defendant argued the order was based on mistake, as they were unaware of prior payments made to Burbank Podiatry, which was part of the lien claim. Crucially, the assigned judge realized she was disqualified due to previously serving as defense counsel in this matter. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry
References
0
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. 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 24,037 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