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. 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. ADJ9585531
Regular
Aug 28, 2017

Andres Reyes vs. PT WELDING INC.; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Applicant Andres Reyes's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory discovery order. The WCAB also denied Applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and directed the parties to resolve the discovery dispute through the Administrative Director. The original order denied Applicant's motion to quash a subpoena for his entire school records from iLearn Institute, which Applicant argued was irrelevant and invaded his privacy. Applicant's petition was dismissed as reconsideration is improper for non-final orders, and his removal petition was denied as he failed to demonstrate significant prejudice.

WACABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery OrderMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumPrivacySignificant Prejudice
References
0
Case No. ADJ7077460
Regular
Nov 04, 2013

MARIA ZEPEDA vs. CANDLE LAMP COMPANY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendants' Petition for Reconsideration. The Board ruled that a petition for reconsideration can only be filed after a final order, and the Board's prior order granting reconsideration was interlocutory, not final. Because the petition sought reconsideration of a non-final order, it was procedurally improper and thus dismissed. The Board also noted the defendants' failure to respond to the initial petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderGranting ReconsiderationOrder Vacating DismissalLien ClaimantWCJ's ReportLien Activation FeeProof of ServiceDismissed
References
5
Case No. ADJ9341119, ADJ9340152
Regular
Jul 21, 2015

ROBERT BOYD (Deceased), JANICE BOYD vs. KELLY SERVICES, ESIS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANIES

This order dismisses a petition for reconsideration and denies a petition for removal. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the underlying decision was an interim procedural order, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities, thus disqualifying it from reconsideration. The Board also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and admonished the petitioner's counsel for filing a petition from a non-final order. This action highlights the distinction between final decisions and interlocutory orders in workers' compensation proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdequacy of Reconsideration
References
6
Case No. ADJ9139200
Regular
Dec 11, 2015

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Matthew Bakes' petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be based on "final" orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions. The WCJ's decision at issue here only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter. Thus, it was not a final order, and the petition was procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsRemoval
References
5
Case No. ADJ8868906
Regular
Feb 22, 2016

MICHELLE CANCHOLA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed because it was filed from a non-final order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) clarified that reconsideration is only available for final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. An interlocutory procedural decision, such as a notice of intent to dismiss a lien for failure to appear at a conference, is not a final order. While the petition was dismissed, it will be considered as a timely objection to the notice of intent to dismiss.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsLien claimantNotice of Intent to dismiss
References
4
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
4
Case No. ADJ13108823
Regular
Jun 09, 2025

CHARLENE ADAMS vs. ST. FRANCIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CMS

Defendant sought reconsideration of an Appeals Board Order and Decision After Reconsideration that had rescinded a WCJ's Findings and Order and remanded the case. The Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition and answer, determined that the petition for reconsideration was filed against a non-final, interlocutory order. Citing Labor Code sections and established precedent regarding finality of orders, the Board concluded that such orders do not determine substantive rights or liabilities and are not subject to reconsideration. Consequently, the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderLabor Code section 5909Transmission of caseElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Sixty-day periodNotice of transmissionSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutory decisions
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 25,309 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