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. ADJ292109 (LAO 0863163)
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

Erica Brumfield vs. County of Los Angeles, Department of Social Services, York Risk Services

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's dismissal order. The dismissal was based on a defendant's petition containing material misrepresentations and improper service on the unrepresented applicant. Crucially, the defendant failed to properly serve notice of dismissal proceedings, and the applicant was actively pursuing her claim as evidenced by her communications with adjusters and medical providers. Therefore, the dismissal order is void *ab initio* due to lack of due process and material misrepresentations.

Amended Petition to Set Aside DismissalPetition to Dismiss Based On Lack of Prosecutionvoid ab initiomaterial misrepresentationPetition for Reconsiderationrescind the Orderindustrial injuryunrepresentedin propria personamisrepresentation of facts
References
Case No. ADJ3588216 (LAO 0866168) ADJ4039946 (LAO0866169)
Regular
May 20, 2009

MARIA ADELA PEREZ vs. JOSE HERNANDEZ, CRAWFORD & COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to rescind two stipulation and orders approving settlements with lien claimants, Dr. Ehyai and Dr. Dini. These orders settled the liens for $1,700 and $1,500 respectively, despite prior payments by the defendant to both doctors totaling over $4,300. The Board rescinded the orders and returned the matter for a hearing to determine if the stipulations were based on misrepresentation or mutual mistake by the lien claimants.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantDr. Reza EhyaiDr. Ali DiniRescissionMisrepresentationMutual MistakeGood Cause
References
Case No. ADJ7661375
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

JOSE CERVANTES vs. TOTAL RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant PTS after their lien was dismissed for failure to prove timely payment of the activation fee. The Board dismissed TCMG's petition for reconsideration because they did not file a lien and their petition contained numerous misrepresentations and procedural violations. The Board also issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $2,000 against Innovative Medical Management, the representative for both lien claimants, due to their bad faith actions and misrepresentations.

Lien activation feeProof of prior paymentSanctionsLabor Code Section 4903.06Labor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Due processMisrepresentation of factsStanding to appealEAMS
References
Case No. ADJ4702369 (LAO 0839192) ADJ4457073 (LAO 0863424) ADJ215002 (LAO 0863425)
Regular
Oct 07, 2013

JUAN CEBALLOS vs. ALLOY DIE CASTING, SEABRIGHT

In a workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board imposed a $1,000 sanction against a lien claimant, Innovative Medical Management, its representative Louis Heard, and Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital. This sanction was levied for filing an untimely objection with a misrepresentation regarding their failure to attend a lien conference, despite clear instructions on filing procedures. The Board found the objection's attached notes demonstrated a deliberate decision not to attend the conference, rendering their excuse of software issues for the misrepresentation unconvincing. The sanction is jointly and severally payable to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDOPINION AND DECISION AFTER REMOVALORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONSLABOR CODE § 5813Petition for Reconsiderationlien claimantuntimely Objectionmisrepresentation of factInnovative Medical ManagementCoast Plaza Doctors Hospital
References
Case No. FRE 0245256
Regular
Jun 05, 2007

FRE 27 XYZZX vs. BUTTON TRANSPORTATION INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release agreement concerning his cumulative injury claim for Valley Fever. He alleged fraud based on misrepresentation of his job title and work environment by the defendant and its adjuster. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was filed significantly outside the statutory 20-day deadline, rendering it untimely.

Valley FeverCoccidioidomycosisCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjuryTruck DriverDispatcher
References
Case No. ANA 0365183
Regular
Apr 27, 2007

CARLOS CHAVEZ vs. STEVE GOLD DAIRY, CIGA, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, PAULA INSURANCE

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration that was dismissed because it was filed significantly outside the statutory 20-day deadline, rendering the Appeals Board without jurisdiction. Even if considered on the merits, the petition would have been denied as the WCJ found the lien claimant's medical treatment was duplicative and not medically necessary. The Board also admonished the lien claimant's representative for misrepresentations in the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationDisallowanceCompromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical ExaminerLabor Code Section 4062Medical TreatmentDuplicative TreatmentMedically Necessary
References
Case No. ADJ6705977, ADJ6880053
Regular
Oct 14, 2014

Applicant vs. Walgreens, Zurich American Insurance Company, Sedgwick

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed a defendant's petition for removal concerning two judicial orders. The WCAB initially dismissed the petition as untimely but later granted removal on its own motion due to concerns about sanctions. Despite finding the defendant's claims of prejudice and misrepresentations to be meritless, the WCAB ultimately decided not to impose sanctions. The matter is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionOrder Taking Off CalendarPrejudiceIrreparable HarmSanctionsAgreed Medical EvaluatorDiscoveryPetition for Joinder
References
Case No. ADJ4642991
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

RICHARD ANTONETTE vs. VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding it an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. The defendant sought removal to challenge a prior award of spinal disk replacement surgery, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The WCAB treated the defendant's petition as one for reconsideration and granted it. This allows the WCAB to further review the case's factual and legal issues before issuing a final decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardspinal disk replacement surgeryfraudmisrepresentationadministrative law judgeextraordinary remedysubstantial prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ11206337
Regular
Aug 23, 2018

Stephen Rowe vs. Grand Pacific Resort Service, Zenith Insurance

Applicant Stephen Rowe sought reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release, alleging fraud and misrepresentation by the defendants. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found that Rowe's allegations of fraud, lacking supporting evidence or testimony, were premature for appellate review. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for the judge to treat the petition as a motion to set aside, allowing for a hearing and the presentation of evidence.

Stephen RoweGrand Pacific Resort ServiceZenith InsurancePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJin pro percumulative traumaarm and wrist injuryfraud
References
Case No. ADJ7836773
Regular
Jul 09, 2012

Francisco Flores vs. Superior Carpet Works, Inc., Preferred Employers

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a sanctions order against the Law Offices of John A. Mendoza. The Appeals Board is also notifying the law firm of its intention to impose additional sanctions. This is due to alleged misrepresentations of fact in the petition for reconsideration and violations of Appeals Board rules regarding attaching previously filed documents. The law firm is granted twenty days to show cause why these additional sanctions should not be imposed.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSANCTIONSRECONSIDERATIONDEPOSITION ATTORNEY FEESLABOR CODE SECTION 5710LABOR CODE SECTION 5813APPEALS BOARD RULESDUE PROCESSMISREPRESENTATIONSFAILURE TO RESPOND
References
Showing 1-10 of 153 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