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. ADJ8438087
Regular
Feb 24, 2017

CONSUELO ACEVEDO vs. SYSTEM SOLDING USA, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending a prior decision to find that Tri-City Health Group's lien was timely filed. The Board affirmed the finding that Komberg Chiropractic's lien was barred by the statute of limitations due to late filing on December 29, 2015, when services ended December 28, 2012. However, Tri-City Health Group's lien, filed electronically on March 21, 2016, was deemed timely, as the deadline of March 19, 2016, fell on a weekend and the next business day was utilized. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings regarding Tri-City Health Group's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsStatute of LimitationsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 4903.5EAMSElectronic FilingBusiness DayTimely Filed
References
Case No. ADJ481937 (RIV 0081478)
Regular
Mar 08, 2018

JERRY OLVERA vs. CEMENT UNLIMITED, IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

In Olvera v. Cement Unlimited, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was electronically filed one day after the jurisdictional deadline of January 23, 2018, as the Order Dismissing Lien was served by mail on December 29, 2017. The Board reiterated that the filing deadline is jurisdictional and requires actual receipt of the petition, not just proof of mailing. Therefore, the Appeals Board lacked the authority to consider the merits of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeService by MailProof of FilingElectronic FilingOrder Dismissing LienMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
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. ADJ9270975
Regular
May 29, 2018

GABRIEL SANCHEZ vs. STRAW HAT PIZZA, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Gabriel Sanchez's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The applicant had 25 days from service of the WCJ's order to file the petition, with the deadline extended to Monday, March 26, 2018, due to a weekend. Since the petition was filed on March 27, 2018, it was deemed late. The WCAB lacks jurisdiction to consider petitions filed after this jurisdictional deadline.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsService by MailDate of FilingOrder Allowing Cost
References
Case No. ADJ7785859
Regular
Nov 18, 2015

RAY ANTHONY vs. VALERO/CERTIFIED SAFETY SPECIALISTS, LLC, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on the fact that the petition was filed **untimely**, exceeding the statutory 25-day deadline for such filings. The Board emphasized that timely filing means actual receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing. Because the petition was jurisdictional late, the Board lacked the authority to consider its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB RulesAdministrative Law JudgeDismissal OrderService by MailProof of FilingAppeals Board AuthorityMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ7020366
Regular
Aug 22, 2013

OCTAVIO GONZALEZ vs. BODEGA LATHE CORPORATION, PACIFIC COMP INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Octavio Gonzalez's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was submitted more than 25 days after the administrative law judge's decision, exceeding the 20-day statutory limit, which can be extended by five days for mail. Because the deadline for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional, the Board lacked the authority to consider it. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits as well.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingJurisdictional time limitLabor Code section 5903Administrative Law JudgeWCJ's Report and RecommendationMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. HaglerScott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ547198 (LAO 0841624)
Regular
May 13, 2019

CHARLOTTE KENNEY PICKARD vs. LOS ROBLES REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Charlotte Kenney Pickard's petition for reconsideration because it was filed two days late. California law grants 25 days to file such a petition after service by mail, extended to the next business day if the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday. The WCAB noted that filing means *receipt* by the board, not just mailing, and that untimely petitions are jurisdictional and cannot be considered. The petition was received on March 13, 2019, making it untimely.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor CodeAdministrative Law JudgeJurisdictional Time LimitProof of FilingFindings and OrderWCJ Report
References
Case No. MON 0279679
Regular
Jun 26, 2008

EILEEN HALPERN vs. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Hertz Corporation's request to reconsider its dismissal of Hertz's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that Hertz's petition was untimely because it was filed with the San Francisco district office, rather than directly with the Appeals Board itself, as required by Rule 10840 for decisions issued by the Board. Even if the petition had been lodged with the district office on the filing deadline, it was not received by the Appeals Board itself within the statutory timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for reconsiderationUntimely filingWCAB Rule 10840District office filingAppeals Board filingMandatory and jurisdictionalReconsideration on Board motionLabor CodeCode of Civil Procedure
References
Case No. ADJ9061807
Regular
May 26, 2016

VIRGINIA ALONZO vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Virginia Alonzo's petition for reconsideration due to untimeliness. The petition was filed on April 4, 2016, more than 25 days after the WCJ's February 25, 2016 decision. Filing deadlines for reconsideration petitions are jurisdictional, and the Board lacks authority to act on late submissions. Additionally, the petitioner's representation notice was noted as deficient.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB RulesProof of FilingNotice of RepresentationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemService by MailCalifornia Labor Code
References
Case No. ADJ9260738
Regular
Apr 21, 2016

DANIELA RODRIGUEZ vs. DOS GRINGOS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation matter, the applicant's Petition for Removal was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the 25-day deadline for removal petitions served by mail in California. The Board noted that the petition was filed over 25 days after the served decision, making it late. Furthermore, the Board indicated that even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits according to the WCJ's report.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingWCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10392Non-final decisionAdministrative Law JudgeService by Mail
References
Showing 1-10 of 4,118 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