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. LBO 0384614
Regular
Jan 23, 2008

CAROLINA SALES vs. ROSS STORES, INC. and XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, MJO STAFFING and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order vacating a Compromise and Release (C&R). The Board then granted reconsideration on its own motion to rescind the original C&R approval. This action affirmed the WCJ's decision to vacate the C&R, effectively returning the parties to their pre-settlement status, due to the applicant's expressed confusion and potential lack of full understanding of the agreement's terms.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder VacatingFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900Good CauseUnverified PetitionIndustrial InjuryApplicant's UnderstandingWCJ Discretion
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. ADJ10738767
Regular
Apr 21, 2023

JEANETTE FRANCE vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER

This case involves applicant's attempt to compel the personal appearance of an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) via subpoena duces tecum. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the applicant's motion as a Petition for Removal of the WCJ's order quashing the subpoena. The WCAB denied removal because the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as required by removal standards. Additionally, the Board noted the petition lacked proper verification, which would have been grounds for dismissal had it not been denied on its merits.

Petition for RemovalMotion to VacateOrder Quashing Subpoena Duces TecumAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Good CauseWCAB Rule 10682Personal AppearanceMedical EvidenceSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
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
Case No. ADJ11596547
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

NATHAN MUNSO vs. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPATMENT, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO WORKERS’ COMP.

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's Order Denying Motion to Strike, and returned the case for further proceedings. This action was taken because the WCJ's order lacked a sufficient record of evidence or testimony to support its decision. The Appeals Board found that a lack of proof of service prevented them from determining when parties were notified, potentially violating due process rights. Ultimately, the Board determined a hearing was necessary to admit evidence and allow parties to present their cases.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical ExaminerOrder Denying Motion to StrikeDue ProcessProof of ServiceRecord of TestimonyAdmitted EvidenceFair HearingReconsiderationSubstantial Prejudice
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. 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. ADJ6821103
Regular

DANIEL RAMIREZ vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was taken from a non-final order taking the matter off calendar (OTOC). While the Petition for Removal would ordinarily be denied, the WCAB granted removal on its own motion. The WCAB amended the OTOC to include a final order denying the applicant's appeal of the Independent Medical Review determination, as the Board lacks authority to address the constitutional issues raised.

Petition for ReconsiderationTaking Off Calendar (OTOC)Final OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderPetition for RemovalBoard MotionIndependent Medical Review (IMR)Constitutional IssuesAppellate Review
References
Case No. ADJ2841961 (SJO 0191311)
Regular
May 03, 2012

DERRICK LITTLE vs. WALKER CONCRETE CO., LIBERTY MUTUAL INS. CO.

Applicant Derrick Little filed an "appeal" of an order denying his motion to change venue, which the Board treated as a Petition for Removal. The Petition was dismissed because it failed to articulate any specific factual or legal contentions justifying the removal. Furthermore, the Petition did not demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which are required for a grant of removal. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and recommendations in its entirety when dismissing the petition.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueWCJ OrderOrder Denying MotionDismissed PetitionSkeletal PetitionSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable InjuryWCAB Rule 10842WCAB Rule 10846
References
Showing 1-10 of 12,287 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