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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
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. ADJ6793843
Regular
Jan 24, 2012

CHRIS WHITE vs. B & B MOTORS, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration, dismissing the lien claimant's petition. The Board found reconsideration was improvidently granted as the lien claimant sought to reconsider a nonexistent order of dismissal. Reconsideration is only permissible for final orders, and the WCJ's comments did not constitute a final order. The lien claimant will be able to seek reconsideration after a final dismissal order is issued.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalIndustrial injuryCalendaring errorCalifornia Code of Procedure section 473Notice of Intention to Dismiss LienFinal orderDecision After ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ3882107
Regular
Oct 04, 2012

PETER ARCARESE vs. LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL H. MILLER, STATE FARM CALIFORNIA, WC CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Peter Arcarese's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The petition was also dismissed as consecutive, attempting to relitigate issues previously addressed after a prior dismissal. Furthermore, the request for removal was denied as Arcarese failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderDismissed PetitionPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedyWrit of Review
References
Case No. SAC 0343316
Regular
Aug 14, 2007

MELODY BRIDGES vs. SCHURMAN FINE PAPERS, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior order dismissing the applicant's petition, finding it was timely filed. Despite the applicant's petition being deemed timely, the Board, adopting the Judge's report, ultimately denied reconsideration of the original April 4, 2007 findings. This rescinds the dismissal order but affirms the denial of the initial request for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to VacateOpinion and Order Dismissing ReconsiderationTimeliness of FilingPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Findings and OrdersTemporary DisabilitySalary During DisabilityProof of ServiceElectronic Case History Log
References
Case No. ADJ8183477
Regular
Jan 14, 2016

DOLORES MOSELEY vs. NOIA RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., ICW GROUP/INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Dolores Moseley's petition for reconsideration. The petition was untimely as it sought reconsideration of an award made over a year prior to filing. Furthermore, the petition was unverified and lacked specificity regarding the issues and legal arguments. Finally, the orders Moseley sought to reconsider were either vacated or deemed non-final procedural decisions, rendering the petition moot.

Labor Code Section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Dismissing PetitionOrder Vacating Trial DateStipulations with Request for AwardTimelinessJurisdictionalVerification
References
Case No. ADJ4139709
Regular
Jan 14, 2010

JORGE HERRERA vs. ROMANO'S MACARONI GRILL, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Applicant filed a petition for reconsideration from a non-final Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which is procedurally improper. Simultaneously, a different judge approved a Compromise and Release Agreement on the same day the petition was filed, an action beyond the judge's authority once the petition was pending. The Board dismissed the Applicant's petition for reconsideration and, on its own motion, granted reconsideration of the approved Compromise and Release. Consequently, the Order Approving Compromise and Release was vacated and the matter remanded for further consideration of the agreement.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalMandatory Settlement ConferenceCompromise and Release AgreementNotice of Intention to DismissWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJEAMSLabor CodeFinal Order
References
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034)
Regular
Mar 25, 2014

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT FOOD SERVICES, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., BROADSPIRE

This case involves applicant Kristian Von Ritzhoff's petition for reconsideration of a prior Board decision. The Board had previously modified an administrative law judge's order, shifting the responsibility for paying a sanction and costs from the defendant to the applicant. The applicant's current petition sought reconsideration of this modified order, but the Board found it was a successive petition without a new grievance. Because the applicant was not "aggrieved" by the modification to the payment method and had not been granted relief previously sought, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissing PetitionOpinion and OrderGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderWorkers' compensation administrative law judgeSanction and costsLabor Code section 5900
References
Case No. ADJ3505181 (POM 0262203)
Regular
Mar 26, 2019

DANIEL HERRERA vs. ROBERT HARMAN & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES, MCKELVEY, BELLWOOD LAUNDRY & LINEN, CROTHALL LAUNDRY SERVICE; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an order dismissing the applicant's case for lack of prosecution. The dismissal occurred because the applicant's objection to the dismissal petition was allegedly not properly filed with the EAMS system, despite being mailed to the District Office. The WCAB found sufficient evidence in the applicant's petition and supporting documents to warrant a hearing on the merits of the dismissal. The case is returned to the trial level for the judge to set a hearing and consider the dismissal petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CaseLack of ProsecutionEAMSPetition for Dismissal for Lack of Diligent ProsecutionNotice of Intention to DismissObjection to DismissalRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
Case No. ADJ1173558
Regular
Feb 25, 2014

CLORIA SAMAYOA vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was taken from a non-final interlocutory order, not a final decision determining substantive rights. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, adopting the Administrative Law Judge's reasoning that no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was demonstrated. The underlying issue involved an order rescinding the dismissal of a lien claimant's lien, which the defendant sought to overturn. The Board found that rescinding the dismissal was necessary to allow the defendant to pursue their petition for costs and sanctions against the lien claimant.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsRemoval DeniedReconsideration Dismissed
References
Showing 1-10 of 16,806 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