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. ADJ2440985 (EUR 037746)
Regular
Jun 11, 2014

FRANK McCOVEY vs. WAYNE BARE TRUCKING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In McCovey v. Wayne Bare Trucking, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on April 17, 2014, over 25 days after the Board's decision was served on March 3, 2014. California law allows 20 days for reconsideration, plus an additional 5 days for mailing, and filing is determined by receipt date, not mailing date. As the petition was received beyond the jurisdictional deadline, the Board lacked the power to grant it.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalLabor Code Section 5903WCAB Rule 10507JurisdictionalAppeals BoardWayne Bare TruckingState Compensation Insurance FundMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
3
Case No. ADJ7270261
Regular
Mar 01, 2012

MEKAL FARUKI vs. MACY'S DEPARTMENT STORES

This case involves Mekal Faruki's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely. Labor Code section 5903 establishes a strict 20-day deadline for filing reconsideration petitions, with a possible 5-day extension for mailing. Critically, the petition is considered filed upon receipt, not mailing date. Faruki's petition was filed over 25 days after the December 10, 2010 decision, rendering it jurisdictionally barred.

Mekal FarukiMacy's Department StoresPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903WCAB Rule 10507Jurisdictional Time LimitDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSacramento District Office
References
6
Case No. ADJ8316817
Regular

MAUDIEL DE LEON vs. SELECT STAFFING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration filed by a lien claimant that was dismissed as untimely. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found the petition was filed outside the statutory 20-day period plus 5 days for mailing. Crucially, the Board held that a petition is deemed filed upon receipt, not mailing date, and untimely petitions are jurisdictional. Therefore, the Board lacked the power to grant the petition, resulting in its dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013JurisdictionalValle v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. ADJ7192362
Regular
Dec 17, 2013

THOMAS HUTLEY vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed as untimely. The Board found that the lien claimant failed to file the petition within the required 20-day period, plus 5 days for mailing, from the date of the Order of Dismissal. Even considering the lien claimant's asserted later notice date, the petition remained untimely. Ultimately, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits due to the untimely filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Proof of ServiceOfficial Address RecordRules of Practice and ProcedureBare DeclarationPresumption of ReceiptEvid. Code
References
8
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034), ADJ1776170 (MON 0224335)
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT, AIG, BROADSPIRE, a CRAWFORD COMPANY

Kristian Von Ritzhoff has been declared a vexatious litigant by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) under California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10782. This designation requires him to obtain prior approval from the Presiding Judge or the Appeals Board before filing any pleadings, unless represented by a licensed attorney. The WCAB reviewed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Von Ritzhoff, dated September 10, 2012, and determined it was *not accepted* for filing. This ruling signifies the Board's adherence to the pre-filing order in managing the applicant's litigation activities.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalExtraordinary remedyDeputy CommissionerOgden EntertainmentBroadspire
References
3
Case No. ADJ2696684
Regular
Oct 17, 2008

ARNULFO MARTINEZ vs. ARGUS CONTRACTING TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) award for an applicant's industrial injury. The WCAB dismissed the defendant's petition because it was not filed within the statutory 20-day period, plus an additional five days for mailing, as the petition was received by the Board one day after the deadline. Mailing the petition within the deadline was insufficient; it had to be received by the WCAB by the due date to be considered timely filed.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial cumulative injuryright wristmassage therapistpermanent disabilityfurther medical treatmenttemporary disability overpaymentLabor Code section 4061 noticepermanent and stationary
References
2
Case No. ADJ1510738
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

XXZZX SJO2 vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund's (SIF) petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on August 11, 2008, which was beyond the 25-day jurisdictional deadline for reconsideration after service by mail on July 14, 2008. The WCAB emphasized that filing is determined by the date of receipt, not mailing, and the petition was received by the San Jose district office three days after the deadline.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionalFiling DateReceipt DateOfficial Address RecordProof of ServiceDismissedWCAB
References
8
Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board initially proposed sanctions against attorney Michael Linn, Esq., mistakenly listing the service date for his objection period. Despite Mr. Linn filing objections on March 4th and April 6th/9th, which were not technically untimely based on the actual service dates, the Board granted him further opportunities to respond. Ultimately, the Board extended the deadline to May 20, 2009, for Mr. Linn to file any additional objections to the proposed $\$ 500.00$ monetary sanction, citing potential service discrepancies and aiming to avoid any appearance of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardmonetary sanctionsnotice of intentiondue processservice date discrepancyobjection to sanctionsadditional timeCalifornia Code of Regulationsfurlough directivesstate holidays
References
2
Case No. ADJ8916701
Regular
Mar 25, 2019

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. CASA DEL REY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration as untimely. California law allows 25 days to file such a petition after a final decision is served by mail. Crucially, the petition must be *received* by the WCAB within this deadline, not just mailed. The WCJ's Order Approving Compromise and Release was dated October 31, 2016, making the petition filed on January 30, 2019, significantly late. As the time limit is jurisdictional, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider the untimely petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingJurisdictional time limitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseService by mailExtended filing deadlineProof of mailingDismissal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 22,467 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