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. ADJ8666036
Regular
Feb 19, 2019

MARIA VALENCIA DE ESPINOZA vs. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order. California law only permits reconsideration of "final" orders that determine substantive rights or threshold issues. The original order in this case, a Notice of Intention to Dismiss by a non-physician lien claimant, was an interlocutory procedural decision and thus not appealable. The Board will return the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to address the petition as an objection to the non-final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNotice of Intention to DismissLien Claimant
References
4
Case No. ADJ6977398
Regular
Jun 06, 2022

JOANN KROEPIL vs. VONS, ALBERTSONS HOLDINGS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed an applicant's petition for reconsideration because it sought review of a non-final interlocutory order. The order in question merely continued a mandatory settlement conference, which is a procedural step and not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. As petitions for reconsideration can only be taken from final orders, the Board dismissed the petition. The Board also advised the applicant to seek removal rather than reconsideration for non-final orders in the future.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceInterlocutory OrderProcedural IssueThreshold IssueSubstantive RightLiabilityPre-trial HearingWCJ Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ2003074 (SFO 0486401) (ADJ3727915 - CONSOLIDATED
Regular
Apr 05, 2010

ALEXANDRA MONTEITH vs. EDWARD LITTLEJOHN, M.D., TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES (BHHC)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed TIG Specialty Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration because it sought to appeal a non-final order. The WCAB also denied TIG's petition for removal, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that TIG failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable injury. This decision confirms that appeals can only be made from final orders that determine substantive rights and liabilities. The WCAB found TIG's argument regarding a non-party's interference with the settlement was not properly before them due to the non-final nature of the appealed order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseVacating OrderAdministrative Law JudgeNon-party InterferenceCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)PrejudiceFinal Order
References
5
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
4
Case No. ADJ4157066
Regular
Aug 13, 2023

PORFIRIO ABRAJAN vs. JOSE OCHOA FARM LABOR SERVICES, INC., VARIOUS EMPLOYERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB dismissed SCIF's petition for removal because the June 6, 2013 order was not a final order. A prior order dated April 25, 2013, dismissing lien claims, was labeled "proposed" and remained ambiguous. The WCJ's subsequent rescission of that order was permissible as it was merely a notice of a future final order. As SCIF was not aggrieved by the rescission of a non-final order, their petition was dismissed.

Petition for RemovalOrder RescindingProposed FindingsLien ClaimsLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06WCJ JurisdictionFinal OrderAggrieved PartyWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ7872929
Regular
Aug 26, 2013

SAMUEL FRANCO vs. JCT COMPANY, INC.; FIRSTCOMP OMAHA, ENDURANCE SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the appealed order was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted the applicant's alternative Petition for Removal, recognizing significant prejudice to the applicant due to the inconvenience and cost of appearing at the Long Beach District Office. Consequently, the WCAB ordered the case transferred to the Van Nuys District Office for venue. The WCAB also cautioned the applicant's attorney regarding the inappropriate filing of a reconsideration petition on a non-final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalPetition to Change of VenueWCJCumulative Industrial InjuryDelivery DriverLower ExtremitiesBackHipHernia
References
13
Case No. ADJ987728 (GOL 0100705) ADJ361855 (GOL 0100706)
Regular
Sep 22, 2009

CYNTHIA SIEGERT vs. COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM; permissibly self-insured, administered by KEENAN \u0026 ASSOCIATES

This case concerns a defendant's attempt to appeal a non-final order that took the matter off calendar for further medical record development. The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration, deeming it improvidently granted as the original order was not a final decision. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no irreparable harm or significant prejudice. This action effectively dismissed the defendant's procedural challenges to the WCJ's management of the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalVacating OrderDismissing PetitionDenying PetitionAgreed Medical EvaluatorFurther DiscoveryAlmarazOgilvie
References
4
Case No. ADJ11665754
Regular
Mar 17, 2020

MELISSA RIVERA vs. AURORA LAS ENCINAS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order. A valid petition must address a "final" order that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or a fundamental threshold issue. In this case, the January 10, 2020 decision was a "Findings and Order," not a final award. Therefore, the defendant was not an aggrieved party from a final decision, and their petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartyFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiability DeterminationThreshold IssueFindings and OrderAwardAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ8905657
Regular
Nov 27, 2013

SALVADOR SANCHEZ vs. ANTONIO RAMOS CONCRETE, AMTRUST

This case involved an applicant, Salvador Sanchez, and defendants Antonio Ramos Concrete and Amtrust. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order, specifically an Order Denying Change of Venue, which does not determine substantive rights. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's attorney was admonished for filing a petition challenging a non-final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory ProceduralEvidentiary DecisionsRemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ10142412
Regular
Jul 11, 2016

CARLOS GERMAN vs. E&J GALLO WINERY

The defendant sought reconsideration and removal of a Findings and Order finding the applicant's choice of a chiropractic QME appropriate. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the QME specialty selection a non-final discovery order. Removal was denied as the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and medical evidence did not conclusively show an orthopedic surgeon was more appropriate. The Board admonished defense counsel for filing on a non-final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical Specialty DisputeChiropractic PanelOrthopedic Surgery PanelLabor Code Section 4061Medical Director DeterminationTitle 8 California Code of Regulations Section 31.5(a)(10)
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 25,262 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