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. ADJ5814563
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

MARIA VILLEGAS vs. BURKE WILLIAMS, INC., TRAVELERS SACRAMENTO

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, unverified, and unserved. The Board also initiated removal and a notice of intention to impose a $250 sanction against the lien claimant and its representative for frivolous conduct, including filing a petition with willful misrepresentations of the record. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, leading to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which formed the basis of the dismissed petition. The Board found the lien claimant's assertion of lack of notice contradicted the record, which showed service of the conference notice.

Notice of Intention to Dismiss LienPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantRemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Due processVerificationServiceUntimely
References
9
Case No. ADJ8693165
Regular
Sep 03, 2013

JEREMY VALENCIA vs. AGI PUBLISHING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an order imposing sanctions against the injured worker's attorney. This was due to improper service of the sanctions order and lack of sufficient notice, preventing the attorney from an adequate opportunity to be heard. The WCAB denied the petition for disqualification of the judge, finding no evidence of bias. The petition concerning the notice of intention to dismiss the case was dismissed as it was not a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsNotice of Intention to DismissWCJInjured WorkerCounselService of ProcessOfficial Address Record
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. ADJ4442534 (OAK 0266174)
Regular
May 17, 2010

ROXANNE MOSLEY vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a dismissal order, finding it unclear if the applicant received proper notice of the dismissal proceedings. Although the applicant's original attorneys had closed their practice and the current custodians of records did not represent her, a new firm filed the reconsideration petition on a precautionary basis. The Board intends to affirm the dismissal unless the applicant, who appears unrepresented, files an objection within 30 days, and will serve her at both her last known addresses to ensure notice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CasePetition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to be HeardSubstitution of AttorneysCustodian of RecordsAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
6
Case No. ADJ2854263 (ANA 0400148)
Regular
Apr 21, 2014

MARIA QUEZEDA vs. TACO BELL, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claim for failure to pay an activation fee. The WCAB is now giving notice of its intention to dismiss the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed over three months late and by a representative who failed to comply with WCAB rules regarding notice of representation. The lien claimant must provide evidence of timely filing and compliance with representation rules within 15 days to avoid dismissal. The Board also notes the lien claimant may not have filed a required declaration to support their lien.

Lien activation feePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10774.5Notice of RepresentationCollective ResourcesAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionLabor Code section 5903Timeliness of filingWCAB Rule 10510(a)(3)
References
1
Case No. ADJ6502736
Regular
Oct 19, 2011

JUAN BARCENAS vs. THE BEST MASTER ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final notice of intention to dismiss, not an actual decision. The WCAB granted removal to address the frivolous nature of the petition, as it lacked reasonable justification and wasted judicial resources. Consequently, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on the lien claimant for filing this unjustified petition. The lien claimant has 15 days to object with good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to Dismiss LiensLien ClaimantWCJRemovalSanctionLabor Code section 5813Reasonable JustificationFrivolous Petition
References
3
Case No. ADJ7271033
Regular
Jan 25, 2017

JENNIFER LAWSON vs. GLEN IVY DAY SPA, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed lien claimant Proex Diagnostics' lien for failure to pay a \$100 activation fee. Proex argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a federal court order and DWC guidance. The WCAB's notice indicates they intend to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days of the notice. If rescinded, the lien claim will return to the trial level for further proceedings.

Proex DiagnosticsGlen Ivy Day SpaCompWest Insurance CompanyBerkshire Hathaway Homestate CompaniesLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJReconsiderationCompromise and Release
References
1
Case No. ADJ2644699 (OXN 0127883)
Regular
Jan 01, 2014

RIGOBERTO ITURBIDE vs. WOLFE & KINSLER, PACIFIC COAST LABOR, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed Dr. Aminian's petition for reconsideration of a lien dismissal because it was unverified and lacked good cause. Removal was granted sua sponte to initiate sanctions proceedings against Dr. Aminian, his representative Durden & Associates, and Ted Durden for filing a frivolous and potentially false claim regarding notice of a lien conference. The Board found evidence of service and a prior opportunity to raise the notice issue, suggesting bad faith or unnecessary delay. Sanctions up to $1,500 are pending a response showing good cause from the lien claimant and his representatives.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantRemovalSanctionsUnverified PetitionGood CauseLien ConferenceNotice of Intent to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. ADJ7403543
Regular
Nov 20, 2012

CRESENCIO AYALA vs. ALABAMA METAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it sought to challenge a notice of intent to dismiss, not a final order, and was unverified. The Board also granted removal on its own motion to issue a notice of intention to impose sanctions against the applicant's attorney. This action is due to the filing of a frivolous and unverified petition without merit. Sanctions will be imposed unless the attorney demonstrates good cause to the contrary.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissLack of ProsecutionUnverified PetitionFinal OrderLabor Code § 5900Labor Code § 5902RemovalLabor Code § 5813
References
5
Case No. ADJ10642409
Regular
Feb 23, 2018

Santos Rubalcaba vs. Beautiful Church/Rowland Heights Korean Baptist Church, GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company

The applicant sustained an industrial hand and skin injury. The defendant's attorney misrepresented proof of service of a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Case by falsely claiming it was served on the applicant. The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion and issued a notice of intent to impose sanctions up to $2,500 against the defendant's attorney and insurer for their frivolous and misleading conduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DismissalNotice of Intention to Dismiss CaseMandatory Settlement ConferenceService of NOIMaterial MisrepresentationFrivolous ConductLabor Code section 5813
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 14,757 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