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. ADJ1534095 (LAO 0820188)
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

PAMELA MCMILLIN vs. XEROX CORPORATION; ACE USA, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an order dismissing its lien was untimely filed. Because the original petition was untimely, the administrative law judge lacked jurisdiction to rescind the dismissal order. Therefore, the Board rescinded the judge's order and dismissed the lien claimant's petition, leaving the original dismissal order in effect.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Rescinding DecisionLien ClaimLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06JurisdictionUntimely FilingCompromise and ReleaseWCJ
References
1
Case No. LBO 0297361
Regular
Nov 28, 2007

ANTHONY TENNISON vs. NATIONAL PLANT SERVICES, CIGA by its servicing representative, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, for Reliance Insurance, in liquidation

The Appeals Board dismissed petitions for reconsideration and removal challenging an order compelling the applicant's wife to attend a continued deposition. The pro se petition was dismissed as untimely and unverified, while the attorney's petition was dismissed because discovery orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order, finding the wife waived her marital privilege by appearing and testifying, and cautioned parties about potential sanctions for their behavior.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaldepositionmarital privilegechild care reimbursementdiscovery orderinterlocutory orderfinal orderuntimely petition
References
12
Case No. ADJ6876456
Regular
Jan 27, 2010

MARILYN BROWN vs. COLLECTCORP CORPORATION, HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order denying a motion to dismiss. The WCAB also dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal as untimely, as it was filed more than 20 days after the order it challenged. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which is required for removal. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition for removal were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code $\S 5405$JurisdictionDue ProcessFinal OrderTimelinessCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
5
Case No. ADJ7574646
Regular
Jan 25, 2012

HEATHER YARBOROUGH vs. JENNY CRAIG, AIG INSURANCE c/o SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for removal and reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed 34 days after the order was served. The petition argued the administrative law judge erred by ordering treatment outside the Medical Provider Network, but the board found the petition was filed beyond the jurisdictional time limits. Furthermore, the board noted that the order compelling the defendant to arrange for a PQME evaluation and other examinations was not a final order, which is required for reconsideration. Therefore, both petitions were dismissed.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingMPNMedical Provider NetworkNeurosurgeonOrthopedistNeurologistTreating Doctor
References
5
Case No. ADJ15495436
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

Calvin Grigsby vs. Grigsby and Associates, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered two petitions from the applicant, Calvin Grigsby: a December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal, and a December 24, 2024 Petition for Removal. The Board dismissed the reconsideration aspect of the December 9th petition as it pertained to non-final orders and denied removal, finding no demonstration of irreparable harm. The subsequent December 24th petition was also dismissed as it challenged the same December 4, 2024 orders. The Board also noted the applicant's failure to comply with page limits for the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNonfinal OrdersLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental Pleadings
References
15
Case No. ADJ7226408
Regular
Feb 16, 2012

Robert Thompson vs. VONS, A SAFEWAY COMPANY

Defendant Vons sought removal and reconsideration of a WCJ's order authorizing applicant's attorney to accept $3,000 for a diminished future earning capacity expert. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, finding the order interlocutory and not a final determination of substantive rights, nor was defendant directly aggrieved. The petition for removal was also dismissed as untimely regarding the reservation of jurisdiction in a prior award and because defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. Ultimately, both the Petition for Removal and Petition for Reconsideration were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated AwardDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC ExpertOgilvie IssueJurisdiction ReservedInterlocutory Order
References
7
Case No. ADJ8162345, ADJ7959552
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

MARIA CHAVEZ MARTINEZ vs. RESTAURANT LEADERSHIP GROUP, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

Lien claimants' petitions challenging a WCJ's order denying their ex parte petition and ordering depositions were dismissed. The Board found the initial petition for reconsideration untimely, as it was filed 21 days after personal service, and the order was not a final one. The second petition for removal was denied as the lien claimants failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and the WCJ's reasoning was sound.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalUntimely PetitionFinal OrderEx Parte PetitionWCJ OrderDiscovery BurdenJurisdictional Time Limit
References
6
Case No. ADJ2501619 (OAK 0286955)
Regular
Nov 10, 2008

JAMES BRADFORD vs. MCMILLAN BROS. ELECTRIC, INC., PACIFIC EAGLE INSURANCE CO./tpa SEABRIGHT INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petitions for reconsideration, removal, and stay of execution. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed with the Appeals Board more than 25 days after the arbitrator's decision. The Board also lacked jurisdiction to grant the petition for removal or stay of execution, as these actions are not permitted for an arbitrator's decision in a Labor Code section 3201.5 carve-out case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for Stay of ExecutionUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 3201.5Carve-out CaseArbitrator's DecisionJurisdictionAppeals Board Rule 10865
References
4
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. ADJ10270511, ADJ10458415
Regular
Apr 03, 2023

BERLEAN LEEDY vs. ESKATON PROPERTIES, INC., ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration and removal. The WCAB found that the applicant's petition challenged non-final interlocutory orders, which are not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the petition for removal was untimely as it was filed more than 25 days after the challenged medical examination order. The WCAB also dismissed removal regarding a later minute order as it contained no appealable decisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling Attendance at Medical ExaminationMinutes of HearingFinal OrderInterlocutory Procedural OrderThreshold IssueTimeliness of FilingService by Mail
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 40,847 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