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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ7050875
Regular
Dec 08, 2011

ROBERT DOI vs. CITY OF TULARE, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order, not a substantive decision. The Board also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse final decision issues. Furthermore, the applicant's medical opinion was disregarded as it was based on an incorrect legal theory regarding employment stress and heart disease. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and the request for removal were denied.

Petition for reconsiderationFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityInterlocutory orderNon-final interlocutory ordersRemovalWCJ's Report and RecommendationSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
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. 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. 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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 9,542 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

ยฉ 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational