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. ADJ5806281
Regular
Jul 03, 2012

DEBBIE SCHLATER vs. NORTH COAST DRIVERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant's petition to reopen for new and further disability after an initial award became final. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal to review an administrative law judge's denial of a voluntary arbitration request. The WCAB clarified that while arbitration is generally prohibited after testimony is taken, it is permissible for issues not decided in a final award. Therefore, the WCAB rescinded the denial, allowing the parties to arbitrate the new and further disability claim.

Petition for RemovalVoluntary ArbitrationWCAB Rule 10997Labor Code section 5275(b)Court Administrator Rule 10296(a)Findings and AwardNew and Further DisabilityReopen CaseDisability Evaluator TestimonyFinal Award
References
Case No. ADJ2653693
Regular
Jul 12, 2012

TIMETHY PORTEOUS vs. REAL ROCK INDUSTRIES, LUMBERMENS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over voluntary arbitration after a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) award. The WCJ initially denied arbitration based on WCAB Rule 10997, which generally prohibits arbitration after testimony has been taken. However, the Appeals Board granted removal, reversing the WCJ's decision. They clarified that Rule 10997 only bars arbitration for issues previously decided in a final award after testimony, allowing parties to voluntarily arbitrate any *remaining, undecided* issues. Therefore, the parties were permitted to proceed with arbitration for outstanding matters.

Petition for RemovalVoluntary ArbitrationWCAB Rule 10997Labor Code section 5275(b)Court Administrator Rule 10296(a)Order Denying Request for Submittal to Voluntary ArbitrationFindings and Awardcumulative traumaindustrial injurytemporary disability indemnity
References
Case No. ADJ3656063 (SRO 0135622)
Regular
May 03, 2012

HARVEY JOHNSON vs. ASIEN'S APPLIANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Applicant sought removal of an order suspending action on a Compromise and Release (C&R) that was mistakenly filed. The Applicant argued the WCJ erred, as both parties agreed the C&R should be stricken to allow for voluntary arbitration, but the WCJ's pending order blocked this. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm as no action was taken on the C&R. The Board clarified that upon remand, parties can jointly withdraw the C&R or seek disapproval, then request arbitration.

Petition for RemovalOrder Suspending ActionCompromise and ReleaseVoluntary ArbitrationStriken from the recordSignificant prejudiceIrreparable harmJoint requestTrial levelStipulate to withdraw
References
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. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
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. SAC 0344347; SAC 0344348 SAC 0343619; SAC 0344525
Regular
Apr 11, 2008

LARRY MILLER vs. SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was based on an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Board also denied the applicant's request for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Ultimately, the applicant's request to redact their Social Security Number from a procedural notice was deemed unnecessary to address at this stage.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenying RemovalSocial Security Number RedactionInterlocutory Procedural OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiability DeterminationExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Injury
References
Case No. ADJ2635006 (STK 0206833)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

SAMUEL B. JOHNSON, III vs. CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying discovery requests was not a final order. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The Board affirmed the WCJ's discovery ruling as reasonable and returned the matter to the trial level. The applicant may seek reconsideration of a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJdiscovery requestsRequest for AdmissionsRequest for Authenticationfinal ordersubstantial prejudiceirreparable harm
References
Case No. ADJ7405264
Regular
Jun 19, 2012

IVORY PHILLIPS vs. IRWIN INDUSTRIES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board sanctioned claims adjuster Richard Bailey $250 for failing to appear at an arbitration hearing. Despite Bailey's contentions about lack of written notice and fear of the arbitrator, the Board found he had actual notice of the verbal order. While the underlying issue was resolved, Bailey should have sought permission for his non-appearance, and his disregard for the arbitrator's order undermined the system's integrity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsClaims AdjusterArbitrationWritten ObjectionGood CauseArbitratorVerbal OrderLabor Code Section 5701Independent Medical Examination
References
Case No. ADJ2141542 (SJO 0200213)
Regular
Jul 03, 2012

CELESTINO MORALES vs. MAINTENANCE MATCH INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION on behalf of SUPERIOR PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied CIGA's Petition for Removal because CIGA stipulated to the order it sought to remove, and no party is yet aggrieved by the ongoing arbitration proceedings. The Board found CIGA's petition frivolous, noting that it failed to demonstrate how it was harmed by the arbitrator's procedural order. Additionally, the Board clarified a prior order, emphasizing that the operative decision rescinded the arbitrator's July 20, 2010 decision. The Board also warned CIGA that sanctions could be imposed on remand for this seemingly bad-faith action.

CIGAPetition for RemovalStipulation and AwardOrderArbitratorLachesAggrieved PartyReconsiderationGood CauseLabor Code Section 5813
References
Showing 1-10 of 12,743 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