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. 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. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
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
Case No. ADJ7128820
Regular
Mar 26, 2018

Carlos Hernandez Moreno vs. Pavor Decor Masonry, Inc., Insurance Company of the West

This case involved a petition for reconsideration filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board dismissed the petition because it was filed late, ten days after the statutory deadline. California law dictates that a petition for reconsideration must be *received* by the Board within 25 days of service, not just mailed. As the petition was filed after this jurisdictional deadline, the Board lacked the authority to consider it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictionalWCJOrder Dismissing LienService by Mail
References
Case No. ADJ9751139
Regular
Jul 20, 2018

ADAM ARISTA vs. NESTLE USA, ACE INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Adam Arista's petition for reconsideration against Nestle USA and its insurers. The WCAB found the petition untimely, as it was filed more than 25 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision was served. California law dictates that a petition for reconsideration must be received by the WCAB within the statutory time limit, which is jurisdictional. Proof of mailing alone is insufficient to meet this deadline.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingJurisdictionalWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCJ reportService by mailMailing dateReceipt date25-day limit
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
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
Case No. ADJ8013755
Regular
Mar 29, 2017

JOONG YEOL LEE vs. BCD TOFU HOUSE; TOWER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The defendant had 25 days from service of the Findings and Award to file, with mail service extending the deadline. However, the petition was received by the Board one day *after* the filing deadline. Filing proof of mailing within the period is insufficient; the petition must be received by the Board. Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition due to its tardiness.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJFindings and AwardLab. CodeCal. Code Regs.JurisdictionalDate of Filing
References
Case No. ADJ2430808 (OAK 0281982)
Regular
Mar 02, 2016

KAMLESH BANGA vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, administered by ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Kamlesh Banga's petition for reconsideration. The petition was deemed untimely because it was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's December 15, 2015 decision. Filing timeliness is a jurisdictional requirement for the WCAB. Therefore, the Board lacked authority to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingJurisdictional time limitDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportService by mailProof of filingMailing dateReceived date
References
Case No. GRO 024430
En Banc
Dec 08, 2004

Myron Abney vs. Aera Energy, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

The Appeals Board held that the amended Labor Code section 5814, which changed penalty calculations for unreasonable delay of compensation, applies to delays that occurred before its June 1, 2004 operative date, if the finding of unreasonableness is made on or after that date.

SB 899Labor Code section 5814unreasonable delaypenaltyoperative datetemporary disability indemnityHofmeister v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.prior to operative dateon or after operative dateconclusive presumption
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,345 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