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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ9925486
Regular
Jun 10, 2016

ALEJANDRO OJEDA CHAVEZ vs. CONCO COMPANIES, ZURICH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final, interlocutory order. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the order did not determine substantive rights, liabilities, or a threshold issue. The petition for removal was also denied, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB stressed that petitions for reconsideration are for final decisions, while removal is the avenue for challenging interim orders.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ8091143
Regular
Jul 24, 2013

ELISE AINSLEY vs. RESCARE INC.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final, interlocutory discovery order, which is not subject to reconsideration. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, adopting the judge's reasoning and finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant was admonished for improperly seeking reconsideration of an interim order. Ultimately, both the petition for reconsideration and removal were dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory DecisionNon-Final OrderProcedural OrderEvidentiary DecisionDiscovery OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ4201900 (OAK 0256105) ADJ1515754 (OAK 0212526) ADJ868359 (OAK 0282983)
Regular
Feb 27, 2017

GRACE BEATTY vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration. The petitions sought to revisit a Minute Order that placed the case off calendar, which is not a final order. A petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a final order that determines substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the WCAB found the petitions procedurally improper and dismissed them.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOff Calendar OrderCompromise and ReleaseSubsequent Injury Benefits Trust FundNon-Final OrderLabor CodeFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiability
References
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. 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. ADJ1047343
Regular
Dec 17, 2015

HELEN WILSON vs. CHEMOIL CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on the fact that the petition sought reconsideration of a non-final order, which is not permissible under California Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903. The Board clarified that only final orders, which determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, are subject to reconsideration. The WCJ's decision in this instance was deemed an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary ruling, thus not a final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ9240822
Regular
Oct 23, 2014

VICTOR PANIAGUA vs. GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT, PSI administered by ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Victor Paniagua's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final, interlocutory order, which is not subject to reconsideration. The Board also denied the petition's request for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the applicant's attorney was admonished for filing the improper petition. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed, and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionRemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
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
Showing 1-10 of 9,532 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