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. ADJ8667926
Regular
Sep 16, 2014

NINFA QUINTERO vs. PACIFIC TRIPLE E. LTD., MEADOWBROOK FOR STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration and dismissed removal in the case of Ninfa Quintero vs. Pacific Triple E. Ltd. The denial was based on the reasoning provided by the workers' compensation administrative law judge, which the Board adopted. The judge correctly found that defense counsel violated Labor Code section 4062.3 by communicating with a medical evaluator and providing documentation less than 20 days prior to the scheduled evaluation, and by failing to serve applicant's counsel with all enclosed documents. The Board further agreed that striking the evaluator's report and ordering a new panel was appropriate, as there was no showing of irreparable harm or significant prejudice to warrant removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalLabor Code Section 4062.3Qualified Medical EvaluatorQMEChiropractic MedicineEx Parte CommunicationMedical TreatmentFinal Order
References
0
Case No. AHM 0114480
Regular
Jun 06, 2008

JAVIER QUINTERO vs. IRON MOUNTAIN, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

In Quintero v. Iron Mountain, Inc., the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This action was taken due to statutory time constraints and an initial review of the record, necessitating further study of the factual and legal issues. The Board requires this additional review to ensure a complete understanding of the case and issue a just decision.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationGRANTINGOPINION AND ORDERJAVIER QUINTEROIRON MOUNTAINZURICH NORTH AMERICAAHM 0114480STATUTORY TIME CONSTRAINTSFURTHER PROCEEDINGS
References
0
Case No. ADJ8602126
Regular
Nov 09, 2016

SERGIO QUINTERO vs. THE GROWING COMPANY, TOWER INSURANCE AND AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Quintero v. The Growing Company. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning from the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. The order specifies that the petition for reconsideration is dismissed. Commissioner Caplane, involved in a prior decision, was unavailable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissedWCJ reportAdministrative Law JudgeSergio QuinteroThe Growing CompanyTower InsuranceAmtrust North AmericaADJ8602126
References
0
Case No. ADJ8069354, ADJ9287572
Regular
Oct 23, 2015

JOSIE QUINTERO vs. WESTERN HEALTHCARE CENTER, TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Josie Quintero's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the jurisdictional 25-day deadline after the WCJ's decision. The WCAB emphasized that a petition must be received by the Board within the timeframe, not merely mailed. Because the petition was filed on September 2, 2015, more than 25 days after the August 4, 2015 decision, it was deemed untimely and therefore dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitService by MailWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10392Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeFinal Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quinteros v. P. Deblasio, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of a brick mason subcontractor, suffered injuries after a scaffold collapsed, causing him to fall and be struck by falling materials. The incident occurred while extending a chimney on a private residence. The plaintiff brought an action against the general contractors, E Debiasio, Inc., and Debiasio & Capo Froperties, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to judgment due to insufficient safety devices and failure to provide a safety helmet. The defendants' arguments, including claims of unforeseeable intervening acts by the plaintiff, were deemed without merit, and their renewed cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.

Scaffold collapseLabor LawSummary judgmentPersonal injuryConstruction accidentSafety devicesProximate causeForeseeabilityGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor
References
17
Case No. ADJ7219770
Regular
Jan 07, 2011

FIDEL QUINTERO vs. CITY OF SEBASTOPOL, REMIF

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's petition regarding an award for industrial injury. The Board found that the defendant was entitled to a 15% reduction in permanent disability payments under Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A) because they offered regular work to the applicant soon after his release to full duty. The Board also rescinded the 25% penalty imposed by the Workers' Compensation Judge, finding no basis for its imposition as the issue was not raised by the parties and due process concerns existed. Ultimately, the Board approved the parties' original stipulations for award.

Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A)permanent and stationary statusoffer of regular workmodified workindustrial injurytemporary disabilitypermanent disability60-day provisionstipulationfindings award
References
1
Case No. ADJ8500075
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

RUDI QUINTEROS vs. STAMOULES PRODUCE, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal after the WCJ rescinded an order approving a compromise and release (C&R). The applicant claimed a "change of heart" as the basis for setting aside the C&R, which the defendant argued was insufficient grounds. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding the WCJ's order and substituting an order suspending the C&R approval. The case was returned to the WCJ to hold a status conference to allow the applicant to present arguments for setting aside the C&R.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalCompromise and ReleasePetition to Set AsideOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOrder Rescinding OrderGood CauseFraudMistakeUndue Influence
References
2
Case No. ADJ8229573
Regular
Feb 09, 2015

SANDRA QUINTERO vs. KOHLS DEPARTMENT STORES, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Frontline Medical Associates' (FMA) petition for reconsideration, upholding the dismissal of its lien. FMA failed to appear at a scheduled lien trial, leading to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and ultimately an Order Dismissing Lien. The Board found FMA's claim of "excusable neglect" due to their prior counsel's alleged failure to notify them of the trial unconvincing, as FMA and their representative, Controlled Health Management, had received proper notice. The Board concluded FMA failed to demonstrate good cause to set aside the dismissal order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienExcusable NeglectGood CauseLien TrialNotice of Intent to DismissCompromise and ReleaseAgreed Medical Examiner
References
4
Case No. ADJ8939095
Regular
Feb 04, 2014

CRISTAL QUINTERO vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves defense counsel seeking reconsideration of a sanctions order. The administrative law judge sanctioned the defense for filing a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed on an AOE/COE issue when the actual dispute was discovery-related. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the sanctions order. The Board found that while defense counsel should have used other procedural mechanisms for discovery disputes, their actions did not demonstrate the bad faith required for sanctions, though they were cautioned against future similar conduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctions OrderLabor Code Section 5813Declaration of Readiness to ProceedPriority ConferenceInjury AOE/COEDiscovery DisputeBad FaithAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ3916772 (VNO 0531887)
Regular
Jan 06, 2009

CARLOS QUINTERO vs. PETER RABBIT FARMS (A Corp), MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The WCAB dismissed defendant's petition for reconsideration and granted removal, rescinding the October 21, 2008 order. The case was returned for further proceedings to determine if the applicant sustained injury before considering the section 3600(a)(10) defense.

RemovalReconsiderationLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)Statute of limitationsCumulative injuryLow backSkinChild support lienPost-termination defenseMedical record development
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 20 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