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. ADJ10306129
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

MICHAEL LAMBERT vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY REGION IV, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration filed by the State of California, Department of Forestry Region IV and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Board found the petition was untimely as it was filed on October 24, 2016, three days after the jurisdictional deadline of October 21, 2016. This deadline was calculated based on the service of the original decision by mail on September 26, 2016. The Board reiterated that filing by mail is insufficient; the petition must be received by the Board within the statutory timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationuntimelydismissalservice by mailjurisdictionalOpinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationuntimely filingOctober 21
References
Case No. ADJ6766619 (MF) ADJ6766620
Regular
Feb 28, 2018

MARIA DURAN vs. FOREVER 21 RETAIL, INC., CHUBB GROUP

This case involves Maria Duran's request for home health care services, which was initially denied by utilization review (UR) and upheld by Independent Medical Review (IMR). The applicant argued that her need for assistance with household chores and personal hygiene fell outside the scope of the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS) guidelines as applied. While the Board acknowledges that the specific MTUS guideline used in this case was later found to be an invalid regulation in a related case, it affirmed the original decision. This affirmance was based on the finding that the initial request for services was too vague, lacking specific details on the type, frequency, and duration of care, and that a revised request could be made.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria DuranForever 21 RetailInc.Chubb GroupOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewUR
References
Case No. ADJ8019992 ADJ9131164 ADJ8511171 ADJ8020023 ADJ8508745 ADJ8019998 ADJ8020051 ADJ8729779
Regular
Dec 05, 2018

SHUN WAH CHAN vs. LY BROTHERS CORPORATION DBA SUGAR BOWL BAKERY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Shun Wah Chan. The WCAB dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed over a year after the original decision, far exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline. The Board emphasized that a petition for reconsideration must be *received* by the WCAB within the statutory period, not just mailed. Therefore, the Board lacked authority to consider the merits of the untimely petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedWCABWCJLab. CodeCal. Code Regs.jurisdictionalproof of mailingOctober 5
References
Case No. ADJ864227 (LBO 350573) ADJ1635667 (LBO 350607)
Regular
Dec 29, 2008

LUIS ECHEVARRIA vs. FALCON WEST, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the trial judge's award of attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5814.5. The Board reasoned that section 5814.5 requires an award of attorney's fees to be "in addition to" increased compensation under section 5814, which was not sought or awarded here. Furthermore, the Board found that any delay in payment was not unreasonable due to a good-faith dispute over the net settlement amount.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLUIS ECHEVARRIAFALCON WESTINC.STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDADJ864227ADJ1635667OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONFindings and Orders
References
Case No. ADJ7500638
Regular
Nov 10, 2015

FREDDY PAREDES vs. ANTONIO COLOCHO MARTINEZ, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Freddy Paredes' petition for reconsideration because it was untimely. The petition was filed on September 21, 2015, which was more than the jurisdictional 25-day deadline from the WCJ's August 24, 2015 decision. Proof of mailing is insufficient; the petition must be received by the Board within the statutory period. Since the petition was untimely, the Board had no authority to consider its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictional Time LimitMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. Hagler
References
Case No. ADJ7775170
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

JUANA NEGRETE vs. SHURFLO, HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's workers' compensation claim filed after layoff, triggering Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the applicant met her burden of proof that she notified her employer of her injury prior to her layoff. The applicant's unrebutted testimony and supporting medical evidence demonstrated employer notice, thus overcoming the statutory bar to compensation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits of the applicant's claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJuana NegreteShurfloHampshire Insurance CompanyADJ7775170Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationbilateral armsbilateral elbowssleep problems
References
Case No. LAO 850708
Regular
Jul 17, 2007

MARIA TOLENTO vs. FOUR SEASONS FINE FOODS/GEVITY/M&M FOODS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed over 25 days after the original Findings and Award. Furthermore, the Board's jurisdiction to grant reconsideration on its own motion had expired as it was over 60 days since the original decision. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as untimely and outside the Board's jurisdiction.

Petition for reconsiderationFindings and Awarduntimely petitionLabor Code section 5900Labor Code section 5903jurisdictionAppeals Board Rule 10507Scott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. Hagleradministrative law judge
References
Case No. ADJ7555409
Regular
Mar 04, 2014

JESUS ESCANUELA vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's untimely petition. The WCAB found that the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion regarding psychiatric permanent disability was not supported by substantial evidence, as it did not properly address causation under the current PDRS. Consequently, the case is remanded to the trial level for further development of the record concerning psychiatric permanent disability. The WCAB deferred the issue of permanent disability and attorney's fees pending this further development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJesus EscanuelaCalifornia Department of Correctionslegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundADJ7555409Fresno District OfficeOpinion and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Award
References
Case No. GOL 96757
Regular
Jun 10, 2008

SA YANG LO vs. CUSTOM SENSORS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior award, upholding the application of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. The Board found that exceptions allowing for the 1997 Schedule did not apply, as the applicant's temporary disability indemnity extended beyond January 1, 2005, and no qualifying pre-2005 reports indicated permanent disability. Furthermore, the Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinion regarding diminished future earning capacity unpersuasive, thus affirming the initial 9% permanent disability rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSA Yang LoCustom Sensors & TechnologiesInc.State Compensation Insurance FundGOL 96757Opinion and Order Denying ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ3930176 (SAL 0055870) ADJ2088536 (SAL 0051507) ADJ3232425 (SAL 0115935) ADJ1470435 (SAL 0061859) ADJ3408192 (SAL 0059277) ADJ4554530 (SAL 0068730) ADJ3800243 (SAL 0064436)
Regular
Dec 10, 2018

RON GALUPPO vs. PEBBLE BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant Ron Galuppo. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely. The WCAB clarified that reconsideration petitions must be *received* by the Board within the statutory period, not merely mailed. Because Galuppo's petition was filed one day after the deadline, it was jurisdictional and therefore dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictional Time LimitFindings and OrderOctober 8 2018October 9 2018
References
Showing 1-10 of 384 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