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. ADJ10978333
Regular
Dec 02, 2018

HERIBERTO SILVA vs. SOUTH COUNTY PACKING DBA RAVA RANCHES, INTERCARE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order. The WCJ's order denying dismissal for lack of prosecution did not determine any substantive rights or liabilities, nor did it resolve a threshold issue. Therefore, the petition was not properly before the WCAB. Even if treated as a removal request, substantial prejudice was not demonstrated.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissal for Lack of ProsecutionFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural DecisionsRemovalSubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ9134227
Regular
Dec 18, 2015

VICTOR DIAZ vs. EXXEL OUTDOORS, INC.; THE HARTFORD

The applicant sought reconsideration of a dismissal order, arguing the judge failed to issue a proper notice of intent to dismiss. The Board denied the petition, finding the judge correctly amended an initial dismissal order to correct an error specifying dismissal "with prejudice" instead of "without prejudice" as initially noticed. This amendment was authorized by WCAB Rule 10859 and Labor Code 5803 to rectify a mistake and conform the order to the notice, which the applicant had not objected to. Therefore, no due process violation occurred, and the applicant received the relief sought.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationAmended Order Dismissing CaseNotice of Intention to DismissDismissal without prejudiceDismissal with prejudiceWCJWCAB Rule 10582WCAB Rule 10780WCAB Rule 10859
References
Case No. ADJ8283873
Regular
Jun 07, 2016

DANIEL CRUZ vs. BROWN SHOE COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed in error, mistakenly addressing an order that did not exist. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the Administrative Law Judge's order dismissing the defendant's own petition to dismiss for lack of prosecution. The dismissal of the defendant's petition was appropriate and the Board's actions are affirmed.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing PetitionLack of ProsecutionRule 10582Application for AdjudicationPetition for Order Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationQME
References
Case No. SAL 0113718
Regular
Mar 21, 2008

MANUEL DeLANDA vs. SODEXHO, AIGRM

The applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation claim dismissed with prejudice due to repeated failures to appear at hearings and a medical evaluation. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the dismissal to be without prejudice. This decision acknowledges the applicant's lack of participation but prioritizes the public policy of disposing of cases on their merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationDismissal with PrejudiceDismissal without PrejudiceApplication for Adjudication of ClaimLaborerLeft Hand InjuryLeft Wrist InjuryLeft Upper Extremity InjurySequela
References
Case No. ADJ3992440 (SBR 0339508)
Regular
Nov 23, 2011

LOUIE M. GONZALES vs. MOBILE MINI, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's Minute Order was not a final order, as it did not dispose of substantive rights. Additionally, the Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm as required for such an extraordinary remedy. The WCJ had previously denied the defendant's petition to dismiss for lack of prosecution without prejudice, allowing it to be resubmitted in one year. The defendant sought reconsideration based on alleged new circumstances regarding the applicant's parole violation.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition to Dismiss for Lack of ProsecutionIncarcerated ApplicantParole ViolationIncompetent while incarceratedFinal OrderSubstantive Rights and LiabilitiesSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ8327776
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

PATRICK CURTIS BUDGE vs. WIGHTMAN ENTERPRISES, TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Patrick Curtis Budge's Petition for Removal. The Board found no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable injury that would warrant granting this extraordinary remedy. While the WCJ initially recommended dismissal for lack of verification, the applicant subsequently provided the necessary filing. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemoval deniedSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable injuryWCJ reportLack of verificationVerification filedAdministrative law judgeExtraordinary remedy
References
Case No. ADJ4337013 (LAO 0779055)
Regular
Sep 26, 2014

PRUDENCIO HIGUERA vs. E & A PALLET, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a dismissal for lack of prosecution. While the dismissal was affirmed, it was amended to be "without prejudice." The majority found the applicant had notice and opportunity to be heard, but a dissenting commissioner argued for allowing the case to proceed on the merits due to the fundamental nature of workers' compensation rights. The case involved an injury from August 1999.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalLack of ProsecutionNotice of Intention to DismissDue ProcessAppeals Board Rule 10582Opportunity to be HeardWithout PrejudiceSubstantial JusticePublic Policy
References
Case No. ADJ6627057
Regular
Oct 21, 2011

EDITH TUPAS vs. HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, LLC, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Edith Tupas's petition for removal seeking to disqualify the judge, have a judge attend her deposition, and prevent dismissal of her case. The Board found no sufficient grounds to disqualify the judge and noted the applicant's prior petition for a judge at her deposition was denied. Additionally, the Board found the removal request premature and lacked a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant was reminded that failure to appear at her deposition could lead to a suspension of benefits.

Petition for RemovalWCJ DisqualificationDeposition SupervisionFailure to ProceedDiscovery OrderEx Parte CommunicationBias and PrejudiceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ10975625
Regular
Aug 20, 2019

GUILLERMO VARGAS HERNANDEZ vs. COURTYARD AT SHERMAN OAKS, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY, EMPLOYERS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied defendant Courtyard at Sherman Oaks' Petition for Removal. Defendant sought to remove an order denying their petition to dismiss the applicant's case for lack of prosecution. The WCAB found that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the defendant failed to demonstrate. The applicant had shown good cause by stating they wished to proceed with discovery and not have the case dismissed, satisfying the requirements for denying dismissal.

Petition for RemovalDeny RemovalLack of ProsecutionWCAB Rule 10582Declaration of Readiness to ProceedApplicant Attorney ObjectionsGood CauseSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ9591888
Regular
Jun 28, 2016

KARLA ROMERO vs. CRYSTAL GARMENT FASHION, INC., PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated here. The defendant's argument that the WCJ denied due process by taking the case off calendar for further discovery was rejected, as it did not prevent the statute of limitations defense from being raised later. Furthermore, the defendant's own actions, by filing a declaration of readiness, re-activated the case, precluding dismissal for lack of prosecution. Case ADJ9593559 remains dismissed.

Petition for RemovalDeniedSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportOff CalendarStatute of LimitationsLack of ProsecutionDue Process
References
Showing 1-10 of 4,520 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