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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ9168456, ADJ9177378
Regular
Aug 18, 2015

MARTA RIVAS vs. OVERHILL FARMS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Marta Rivas's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found that the petition sought reconsideration of a non-final, interlocutory order, which is not appealable. Appeals are only permitted from final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. The Board also admonished the applicant's counsel for filing a petition on a non-final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationnon-final orderfinal ordersubstantive rightliabilitythreshold issueinterlocutoryprocedural decisionevidentiary decision
References
Case No. ADJ9127012, ADJ9127010
Regular
Aug 10, 2015

ROSA RUIZ vs. BARON HR, LLC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it sought review of a non-final order. The Board granted removal and rescinded the Finding of Fact, which determined the correct Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) specialty was chiropractic. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine the validity of QME panels and reports. This included whether the defendant was properly served and if the selected QME specialty and report were valid.

QME specialty disputePetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalnon-final ordersubstantive right or liabilityprocedural non-final ordersprejudicial errorirreparable harmspecific injurycumulative trauma
References
Case No. ADJ7022015
Regular
Jan 28, 2013

SALVADOR SANCHEZ vs. BENTLEY PRINCE STREET, THE HARTFORD, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This order dismisses applicant Salvador Sanchez's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights, but rather from interlocutory procedural decisions. The Board further denies the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Applicant's procedural requests were deemed non-final and therefore not subject to reconsideration or removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNon-FinalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ7632202, ADJ7632184
Regular
Apr 13, 2015

TAYDE CHAPARRO vs. TALBOTS, INC, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Tayde Chaparro's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found that the petition sought reconsideration of a non-final, interlocutory order, not a final decision that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. Therefore, as the order was not final, the petition was procedurally improper and dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionEvidentiary decisionWCJ decision
References
Case No. ADJ1052618
Regular
May 24, 2012

HAYDEE MUNOZ vs. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Haydee Munoz. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The petition, in this instance, sought reconsideration of a pre-trial order regarding evidence, which is considered a non-final interlocutory order. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the request for removal were denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive RightLiabilityRemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code SectionsNon-FinalProcedural Decisions
References
Case No. ADJ7412305
Regular
Sep 13, 2013

KIMBERLY LINDSAY vs. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Kimberly Lindsay's petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order, not a final decision determining substantive rights. The WCAB also denied removal, adopting the administrative law judge's report and finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. This means the petition is effectively rejected, and no further review is granted at this stage. The case was then dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalRemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory DecisionEvidentiary RulingNon-finalIrreparable HarmInadequate Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ9072672
Regular
Feb 05, 2018

APPICLANT vs. KRUSE & SON CORPORATION, AMTRUST

The Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it sought to appeal a non-final procedural order, not a final determination of rights or liabilities. Furthermore, the petition for removal, which was an alternative argument, was also dismissed as untimely. The Board clarified that reconsideration is only available for final orders, and removal petitions must be received by the WCAB within the statutory deadline.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueLien DismissalUntimely FilingMailing vs. Receipt
References
Case No. ADJ7196180
Regular
Jun 25, 2013

JESUS GONZALEZ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was improperly filed against a non-final, interlocutory order that did not determine any substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied removal, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. This decision confirms that petitions for reconsideration and removal are reserved for final substantive orders, not procedural rulings. The applicant's filings were therefore invalidly presented.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderRemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ10127263
Regular
Jun 14, 2018

SANTIAGO MALDONADO RODRIGUEZ vs. SUNRIDGE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Santiago Maldonado Rodriguez's Petition for Reconsideration. The petition sought review of a non-final "Notice of Intention to Disburse Attorney Fee," which the WCAB clarified is not an order. Petitions for reconsideration can only be filed from final orders, decisions, or awards that determine substantive rights or liabilities or threshold issues. As the notice was not a final order, the WCAB dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-Final OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsNotice of Intention to Disburse Attorney Fee
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,316 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