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. 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. ADJ3408070
Regular
Dec 29, 2011

CARLOS LOPEZ vs. COBBLESTONE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary for a lawyer: Biocare RX Specialty Pharmacy sought reconsideration of a lien dismissal, arguing a representative was available by phone for trial. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely. The dismissal order was issued June 13, 2011, and served June 22, 2011, giving the lien claimant 25 days to file for reconsideration. The petition was filed on October 31, 2011, exceeding the jurisdictional deadline.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCJBiocare RX Specialty PharmacyLabor Code section 5903Code of Civ. Proc.section 1013
References
Case No. ADJ11350784
Regular
Jan 13, 2020

LUIS RODRIGUEZ vs. BRAD NYMAN DBA LIVE OAK DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant challenging a finding that he waived his right to a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The applicant requested a replacement panel after the initially appointed QME could not schedule an exam within 60 days, but the exam was ultimately scheduled within 90 days. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition, finding that by accepting an appointment within the 90-day window, he waived his right to a replacement panel. The Board also found the applicant's due process claims unpersuasive, as he had a full opportunity to litigate the issue.

QME panel disputewaiver of replacement panelAOE/COEdue processthreshold issueinterlocutory decisionremoval standardirreparable harmsignificant prejudiceAD Rule 31.3
References
Case No. ADJ8916701
Regular
Mar 25, 2019

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. CASA DEL REY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration as untimely. California law allows 25 days to file such a petition after a final decision is served by mail. Crucially, the petition must be *received* by the WCAB within this deadline, not just mailed. The WCJ's Order Approving Compromise and Release was dated October 31, 2016, making the petition filed on January 30, 2019, significantly late. As the time limit is jurisdictional, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider the untimely petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingJurisdictional time limitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseService by mailExtended filing deadlineProof of mailingDismissal
References
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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ235579 (OXN 0147496) ADJ2314317 (OXN 0147497)
Regular
Oct 15, 2008

JAMES BEAUTROW vs. CITY OF VENTURA POLICE DEPARTMENT, JT2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed a prior decision, but amended Finding of Fact No. 2. The amended finding clarifies that the applicant's temporary disability period was from October 22, 2006, for approximately 12 days, through December 4, 2006, and reimbursement is subject to proof. Jurisdiction was reserved for disputes at the trial level, with a reference to the *Tomlin* case regarding industrial injury findings.

BeautrowCity of Ventura Police DepartmentJT2 Integrated ResourcesADJ235579ADJ2314317ReconsiderationWCJTomlin v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Boardtemporary disabilityLabor Code section 4850
References
Case No. ADJ11446545
Regular
Dec 03, 2019

ROSA LOPEZ RODRIGUEZ vs. UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES SUPPLY COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case concerns a dispute over the appropriate medical specialty for a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The applicant, Rosa Lopez Rodriguez, initially requested a chiropractic QME panel, which was issued first. The defendant objected, arguing that chiropractic was inappropriate due to the applicant's prior surgery and lack of full recovery. The Medical Unit then invalidated the chiropractic panel and issued an orthopedic surgery panel. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning the WCJ's decision. The Board held that the party who first requests a QME panel has the right to designate the specialty and that the defendant failed to provide sufficient grounds to invalidate the chiropractic panel. Therefore, the Board amended the findings to sustain the applicant's objection and affirm chiropractic as the appropriate panel specialty.

AD Rule 31.5(a)(10)AD Rule 31.5(a)(9)AD Rule 31.1(b)Labor Code section 4062Labor Code section 4062.2Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)QME panel specialtyPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Unit determination
References
Showing 1-10 of 405 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