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. 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The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's Order Denying Motion to Strike, and returned the case for further proceedings.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. 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. ADJ496876
Regular
Feb 27, 2012

HELEN EATON vs. TARGET STORES, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order denying a motion to strike an independent medical examiner's report. The Board found the order was not a final order subject to reconsideration. Even if treated as a petition for removal, the Board would have denied it on the merits, as the WCJ's finding of no bias by the examiner was supported by the record. The examiner stated any personal relationship did not impact his opinions.

ADJ496876LAO 0841290Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedFinal OrderInterim OrderEvidentiary DecisionMotion to StrikeIndependent Medical EvaluatorBias
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. ADJ7407298
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

MARTHA PRETALIA vs. WARNER BROTHERS

Defendant Warner Brothers sought reconsideration or removal after the WCJ denied their motion to strike applicant's medical reports. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order was not final, and denied the Petition for Removal as defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board also declined to impose sanctions against the defendant. The defendant's argument regarding Labor Code section 4062.2 was not addressed as the primary issue was the procedural nature of the petitions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinute OrderMotion to StrikeMedical ReportsLabor Code section 4062.2Agreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical ExaminerFinal Order
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. SAC 0357226
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

MARIA E. SANTILLAN vs. WAL-MART, Administered By FRANK GATES SERVICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Wal-Mart's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The Board found that the WCJ's order vacating a prior award was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, Wal-Mart failed to demonstrate the significant prejudice or irreparable harm required to justify the extraordinary remedy of removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeny RemovalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityExtraordinary RemedyPrejudiceIrreparable 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
Showing 1-10 of 12,306 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