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. 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. ADJ7330565 ADJ7330566
Regular
Dec 03, 2012

MICHAEL ACOSTA vs. M.S. ROUSE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities, but rather from interlocutory procedural orders. The petition for removal was also denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed, and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrdersProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsRemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ8050106 ADJ9468937 ADJ9154032
Regular
Nov 03, 2018

ANTONIO VAZQUEZ vs. CARSON TRAILERS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was taken from an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision issues. The order pertains to multiple cases involving Antonio Vazquez and Carson Trailers. The WCJ's order directing the use of a specific bill reviewer was deemed an evidentiary/procedural matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderEvidentiary OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ9274305
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

SALVADOR REYES vs. AVP&H A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Salvador Reyes's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot, as the underlying issue regarding a specific Qualified Medical Examiner appeared to be resolved. Both petitions were denied as they did not address substantive rights or liabilities. The order reflects standard practice for non-final and moot petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityMootnessQMEOrder to CompelMeet and Confer
References
Case No. ADJ4475907 (SJO 0268620)
Regular

JOHNELLA SHACKELFORD vs. RUDOLPH & SLETTEN, ZURICH OF NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against interlocutory, procedural orders that do not determine substantive rights. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and recommendation in denying removal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderRemovalPre-trial OrderWCJ's ReportIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ1052618
Regular
May 24, 2012

HAYDEE MUNOZ vs. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Haydee Munoz. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The petition, in this instance, sought reconsideration of a pre-trial order regarding evidence, which is considered a non-final interlocutory order. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the request for removal were denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive RightLiabilityRemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code SectionsNon-FinalProcedural Decisions
References
Case No. ADJ7523477
Regular
Jun 17, 2013

SHERRY LEVY vs. MANPOWER OF SACRAMENTO, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, decision, or award that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the applicant's request for removal, adopting the reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge. The underlying issue involved disputes over scheduling an Agreed Medical Examiner's evaluation and the applicant's failure to state specific grounds for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing PetitionDenying RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical ExaminerDeclaration of Readiness
References
Case No. ADJ2104768 (FRE 0220936)
Regular
Jun 01, 2009

MARTIN PORRAS vs. H&F FARMS, IGNACIO & DELFINA CUEVAS, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO., GAB ROBINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

California Indemnity Insurance Company sought reconsideration and removal of a WCJ's denial of its motion to dismiss. The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the order denying dismissal is not a final order subject to review under Labor Code § 5900. The petition for removal was denied as California Indemnity failed to demonstrate requisite prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate. The prior order approving a Compromise and Release was already rescinded and returned for further proceedings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise & Releaserescindedinterim orderfinal orderLabor Code § 5900
References
Case No. ADJ6621190
Regular
Jul 11, 2011

DEANNA CARROLL vs. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration of two interlocutory orders: one denying a venue change and another compelling a further deposition. The WCAB found that neither order constituted a final decision that could be reconsidered under Labor Code Section 5900. Applicant's procedural arguments regarding bias and lack of good cause were therefore not addressed on their merits at this stage. The WCAB also denied the petitions for removal, adopting the WCJ's reasoning, and warned the applicant about improper document submission.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJVenue OrderDeposition OrderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor Code Section 5900WCAB Rule 10842
References
Case No. ADJ7733498
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

MINOO DANESHRAD vs. NESSAH EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL CENTER, TOWER GROUP COMPANIES

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by an applicant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order, which does not determine substantive rights. The petition for removal was denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, as required by regulation. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and removal were dismissed and denied, respectively.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrdersProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsRemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Showing 1-10 of 12,198 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