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. ADJ9274305
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

SALVADOR REYES vs. AVP&H A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Salvador Reyes's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot, as the underlying issue regarding a specific Qualified Medical Examiner appeared to be resolved. Both petitions were denied as they did not address substantive rights or liabilities. The order reflects standard practice for non-final and moot petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityMootnessQMEOrder to CompelMeet and Confer
References
9
Case No. ADJ8339009
Regular
Jan 08, 2016

WINSTON ROCKEFELLER (Dec'd), SUZANNA ROCKEFELLER (Dependent), ERIKA OSWALD (Dependent) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION HUBQ-ADMINISTRATION; legally uninsured; administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board intends to rescind its prior order granting reconsideration and dismiss the applicant's petition as moot. This action is prompted by the defendant's assertion that a new Panel Qualified Medical Examiner has been appointed and has issued reports, rendering the original dispute regarding the disqualification of the previous PQME moot. The Board will proceed with rescinding and dismissing unless the applicant demonstrates good cause why the issue remains live. No decision on the merits of the original petition has been made.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerPQMERule 41.5(d)(2)(A)disqualifying conflict of interestmoot issueNotice of Moot IssueOpinion and Order Granting Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ15407478
Regular
May 22, 2025

MARIA CORDOVA vs. GRUMA CORPORATION, ARCH INDEMNITY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed defendant's petitions for reconsideration and removal, challenging a WCJ's order to quash a notice to produce an out-of-state adjuster. The Board determined that the WCJ's order was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order subject to reconsideration, and that removal was not warranted due to a lack of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the Board found the petition moot as the notice to produce had expired or was explicitly quashed. The defendants and their attorneys were admonished for causing delays and filing a moot petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Quashing Notice to ProduceInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderMootnessNotice to ProduceLabor Code § 5909WCJ
References
10
Case No. ADJ8381778
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

GERALD BROWN vs. GOLDEN GATE PETROLEUM, LIBERTY MUTUAL

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Gerald Brown, filed a Petition for Removal and a Petition for Disqualification against Golden Gate Petroleum and Liberty Mutual. The defendants subsequently withdrew both petitions after entering into a Compromise and Release agreement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both petitions as moot, as they were withdrawn and the settlement was approved by the WCJ. Therefore, no further action will be taken on the dismissed petitions.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationCompromise and ReleaseWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ8381778mootwithdrawn petitionsdismissaladministrative law judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ380140 (VNO 0526152) ADJ4708827 (VNO 0525557)
Regular
Jul 20, 2009

Brenda Lee vs. MAGIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION, CNA CLAIMPLUS, INC. for AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA

The defendant sought reconsideration and removal of an order compelling the issuance of a replacement medical panel. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as moot because the underlying order was rescinded by the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) due to a mutual agreement between the parties. Consequently, the WCAB denied the petition for removal. The WCAB noted that the defendant's arguments regarding due process and misrepresentation were rendered moot by the rescission of the order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReplacement Panel OrderPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJMedical UnitAdministrative Directorrheumatologydue processnotice requirements
References
3
Case No. ADJ9625941
Regular
Oct 15, 2015

DANIEL BORGSTROM vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHANNEL ISLANDS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration, as they were taken from non-final interlocutory orders concerning a discovery dispute over deposing the Chief of Police. The applicant's petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the WCJ rescinded the order denying the deposition, thereby allowing it. Finally, the defendant's petition for removal was denied, as they failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and liberal discovery for the fair resolution of cases was favored.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder RescindingDepositionChief of PoliceDiscovery DisputeNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
10
Case No. ADJ11124817
Regular
Mar 25, 2019

GASPAR VILLEGAS vs. INTERIOR RESOURCES, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, INC.

This case involves defendant's petitions challenging an order awarding interpreter costs. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for removal and treated the January 22, 2019 petition as a timely petition for reconsideration, which was granted. The Board also dismissed the February 4, 2019 petition as untimely or moot. The January 7, 2019 order was affirmed, but amended to award $228.00 in Labor Code section 5811 costs.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportsLabor Code 5811 Costsinterpreting costsfinal ordersubstantive rightthreshold issueuntimely petitionmoot petition
References
8
Case No. ADJ7793819 ADJ8527743 ADJ7742174
Regular
Jun 06, 2013

EVERETT JOHNSON vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, CORVEL

The Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as moot because the order sought to be reconsidered was rescinded pending a decision on the applicant's petition to set aside the Compromise and Release. The defendant's Petition for Removal was also denied as they were not currently aggrieved. The matter is returned to the WCJ to hear and rule on the applicant's Petition to Set Aside Order Approving Compromise and Release. The defendant may seek reconsideration after a final order on the settlement is issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompromise and Releaseattorney feesWCJset aside ordermisrepresentationfraudcumulative trauma
References
0
Case No. STK 0175350
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

FRANCIS NZIBO vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION

This case involves applicant Francis Nzibo's claim for penalties against Kaiser Permanente for alleged unreasonable delay in providing cervical surgery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to dismiss the petition for reconsideration as moot because there is no evidence presented as to whether the applicant has actually undergone the authorized surgery. If surgery was not performed, no compensation payment was delayed, rendering the penalty claim moot.

Moot petitionPetition for reconsiderationCervical surgeryUnreasonable delayMedical care provisionPenaltiesWCJ findingsLabor Code section 5814Authorization of surgeryFailure to present
References
0
Case No. ADJ2488411 (RIV 0017588)
Regular
Jun 30, 2011

ROBERT DOODY vs. MERLI CONCRETE PUMPING COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

Defendant Merli Concrete Pumping Company petitioned for removal, arguing insufficient discovery time regarding the applicant's petition for third-party credit and restitution. However, prior to the Appeals Board ruling on the petition, the parties jointly requested and the judge granted a continuance off the trial calendar. Consequently, the defendant's petition for removal became moot. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as moot.

Petition for RemovalThird-party CreditRestitutionDiscoveryOff CalendarMootWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPro Tempore JudgeContinuanceJoint Request
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 14,286 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