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. ADJ8908416
Regular
Jul 14, 2014

ROXANNE BROWN GARCIA vs. ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This order dismisses Roxanne Brown Garcia's petition for reconsideration and denies removal as interlocutory orders are not subject to reconsideration. The Board also denied removal, adopting the judge's report and finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the petition was dismissed for failing to be verified. Ultimately, the Board ruled to dismiss the petition for reconsideration and deny removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedRemoval DeniedFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWCABLab. CodeRymer v. Hagler
References
6
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The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an order imposing sanctions against the injured worker's attorney.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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1975

McIntyre v. Bakers For A Democratic Union

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss a libel complaint. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency or for summary judgment, and also denied dismissal against defendant Caprio for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court modified the order, dismissing the action against Caprio due to lack of jurisdiction, as he was served in New Jersey and had no New York ties. The court otherwise affirmed the denial of dismissal, finding that the subject matter of the allegedly false and indiscriminately distributed pamphlets, viewed in context of opposing affidavits, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to actual malice. Justice Murphy dissented in part, arguing for dismissal against all appellants, asserting the leaflet targeted union officers, not the union, and that the alleged defamation arose from an intraunion dispute protected by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. He further contended that plaintiffs failed to show actual malice with convincing clarity, as required by New York Times Co. v Sullivan.

LibelDefamationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentLabor LawUnion DisputeActual MaliceFirst AmendmentCPLRUS Code
References
5
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
3
Case No. ADJ3865022 (LAO 837425) ADJ1234925 (LAO 837426) ADJ4652554 (LAO 889199) ADJ4467339 (LAO 889200)
Regular
Dec 08, 2008

MANUEL VILLARREAL vs. DELUXE LABORATORIES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied Defendant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and dismissed their petition for reconsideration as it was not from a final order. The Board noted that Applicant's refiling of dismissed claims was procedurally irregular and that the WCJ incorrectly denied dismissal on procedural grounds without addressing the substantive issue of good cause for relief from dismissal. The case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to consider Defendant's contention that Applicant must show good cause to set aside the earlier dismissal order and to potentially dismiss the later-filed applications.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWCJDismissal Without PrejudiceDuplicate ClaimsStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5405Applications for Adjudication of ClaimNotice of Intention to DismissGood Cause to Set Aside Dismissal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Case No. ADJ9585531
Regular
Aug 28, 2017

Andres Reyes vs. PT WELDING INC.; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Applicant Andres Reyes's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory discovery order. The WCAB also denied Applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and directed the parties to resolve the discovery dispute through the Administrative Director. The original order denied Applicant's motion to quash a subpoena for his entire school records from iLearn Institute, which Applicant argued was irrelevant and invaded his privacy. Applicant's petition was dismissed as reconsideration is improper for non-final orders, and his removal petition was denied as he failed to demonstrate significant prejudice.

WACABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery OrderMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumPrivacySignificant Prejudice
References
0
Case No. ADJ11323347
Regular
Apr 15, 2019

PARVIZ AREFIAN vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., OLD REPUBLIC as administered by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Uber's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying their petition to dismiss was not a final order. The WCAB also denied Uber's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board held that due process requires a hearing on the merits of the dismissal petition, not premature appellate review. Therefore, the dismissal petition must be litigated at the trial level.

Res JudicataPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionThreshold IssueSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmDue ProcessFair Hearing
References
0
Case No. ADJ7728285
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

JOSE GOMEZ vs. COURTLANDT KOERWITZ, SPARTA INSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This order dismisses Jose Gomez's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board found that the challenged order was an interlocutory procedural decision. Furthermore, the Board denied removal because Gomez failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration would not be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration is dismissed and removal is denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalRemoval DeniedFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiability DeterminationLab. Code §§ 5900(a)59025903
References
9
Case No. ADJ7550561
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

CHRISTOPHER ARDON vs. COLORLAND GRAPHICS, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST SPRINGFIELD INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was improperly filed from a non-final, interlocutory order. Such orders, concerning procedural matters like evidence or discovery, do not determine substantive rights and are not appealable. The petition for removal was also denied, as no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was demonstrated. Therefore, the applicant's requests are both dismissed and denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNon-FinalRemovalSubstantial Prejudice
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 31,350 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