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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
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. ADJ6925380 ADJ6821867
Regular
Feb 27, 2020

JOSE OROZCO vs. B AND M RACING PERFORMANCES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Care of SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a lien claimant seeking payment for treatment provided to an applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the administrative law judge's disallowance of the lien. The lien was disallowed because it was filed significantly beyond the statutory three-year limit from the date services were rendered. Furthermore, even if an earlier filing date were accepted, the lien would have been dismissed by operation of law due to the failure to pay the required lien activation fee by the statutory deadline.

Labor Code 4903.5Lien activation feeStatute of limitationsWCABJoint Findings and OrderReconsiderationAdministrative law judgeEAMSProof of serviceDismissal by operation of law
References
Case No. ADJ10060262
Regular
Feb 16, 2018

PATRICIA DRIVER vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, California Department of Corrections, which was initially at risk of being denied by operation of law due to the Appeals Board's delay. However, the Board found that its time to act was tolled, similar to the principle in *Shipley*, because the delay was not due to the parties' fault. Despite this tolling, the Appeals Board ultimately denied the reconsideration for the reasons stated in the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report and opinion. The Board also corrected a clerical error in the WCJ's report regarding the applicable regulation for excluding consultative ratings.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedTolledOperation of LawDue ProcessMisplaced FileStatutory Time LimitsAdministrative Law JudgeConsultative Rating8 Cal. Code of Reg. Section 10167
References
Case No. ADJ7630224
Regular
Nov 29, 2012

TINA SPERBER vs. LAW OFFICES OF LISA M. PACIONE

This case involves Tina Sperber's workers' compensation claim against her employer, Law Offices of Lisa M. Pacione. The applicant, a legal assistant, sustained an injury while investigating a property related to a case, claiming implied authorization. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the judge's finding that the applicant was not a credible witness regarding her authority. The Board agreed that the applicant lacked permission for the investigation and that the information gathered provided no benefit to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDenying ReconsiderationLegal AssistantLaw OfficesInvestigationImplied AuthorizationCredibilityBenefit to DefendantFamily Law ProceedingsAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ7899311
Regular
Jun 17, 2014

RONNY PINEDA vs. PEPSI BEVERAGE COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

A lien claimant's petition for reconsideration was denied by operation of law because it was improperly labeled in the Electronic Adjudication Management System, preventing the Appeals Board from timely acting on it. The Board determined the lien claimant's error, not any fault of the Board, prevented the petition from being considered within the statutory 60-day period. Furthermore, the petition was sought from a procedural order, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities, which is a prerequisite for reconsideration. Therefore, the petition would have been dismissed even if properly filed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Lien ClaimantAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Discovery RequestAffidavitOperation of LawToll the PeriodFinal Order
References
Case No. ADJ9122325
Regular
Aug 13, 2016

GILBERT MIRANDA vs. FINISHING TOUCH MOLDING, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied San Diego Imaging's Petition for Reconsideration of an order dismissing its lien. Although the petition was filed electronically, it was improperly designated and thus not brought to the attention of the Board or the WCJ within 60 days. The Board found the petition was not denied by operation of law, but upon review, adopted the WCJ's recommendation to deny the petition on its merits. Therefore, the lien remains dismissed with prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantImproper DesignationDenied by Operation of LawLabor Code Section 5909Report and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ3814780
Regular
May 13, 2013

MARTIN VENEGAS vs. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing liens. The liens were dismissed by operation of law for failure to timely pay the lien activation fee, and a Notice of Intention to Dismiss was unnecessary. The lien claimant's representative was present when the dismissal order was issued, but argued the petition was timely based on the defendant's proof of service. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the lien claimant had notice and the petition for reconsideration was frivolous.

Lien Activation FeeOrder Denying ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ConferenceDismissed by Operation of LawPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeProof of ServiceLien ClaimantTimely Paid
References
Case No. ADJ9637766
Regular
Apr 24, 2018

ERIKA CHAVEZ vs. WEST COAST WAREHOUSE, INC., HARTFORD INSURANCE

Here is a summary for a lawyer in four sentences: This case involves a lien claimant seeking to correct a clerical error in filing a declaration under Labor Code section 4903.05, which resulted in their lien being dismissed by operation of law in the EAMS system. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal, ruling that the issue of whether the lien claimant is entitled to correct the error and remove the dismissal notation should be determined by a Workers' Compensation Judge. The Board emphasized that lien claimants, like other parties, are entitled to due process, including a hearing on whether dismissal should be set aside due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. This ensures a hearing on the merits, consistent with the policy favoring the resolution of disputes on substantive grounds.

Labor Code section 4903.05Lien claimantPetition for RemovalDismissal by operation of lawClerical errorLien Reservation Number (LRN)Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Supplemental Lien FormCompromise and ReleaseDue process
References
Case No. ADJ6792217
Regular
Apr 24, 2018

CONSTANCIO LASCANO vs. SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a lien claimant, Resource Pharmacy, whose lien was dismissed by operation of law in EAMS due to a clerical error in listing the wrong lien reservation number. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal, finding that the issue of correcting the clerical error and removing the dismissal notation should first be addressed by a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). Lien claimants are entitled to due process, including a hearing to potentially set aside a dismissal based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b). The Appeals Board emphasized the policy of favoring hearings on the merits and allowing parties a chance to correct errors.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantResource PharmacyElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Labor Code section 4903.05Lien Reservation Number (LRN)Clerical ErrorDismissal by Operation of LawWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)Due Process
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,718 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