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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. ADJ6876456
Regular
Jan 27, 2010

MARILYN BROWN vs. COLLECTCORP CORPORATION, HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order denying a motion to dismiss. The WCAB also dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal as untimely, as it was filed more than 20 days after the order it challenged. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which is required for removal. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition for removal were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code $\S 5405$JurisdictionDue ProcessFinal OrderTimelinessCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
5
Case No. ADJ11635947
Regular
Mar 25, 2020

EDMOND WOODS vs. CONTEMPORARY SERVICES CORPORATION, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of a Minute Order that stated "WCJ to issue dismissal without prejudice." The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because the applicant was not aggrieved by a final order, as no such order had yet been issued. A petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a final order that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or a fundamental threshold issue. Since the dismissal order itself had not yet been issued, the petition was premature and thus dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalAggrieved ApplicantFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueBenefitsWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
4
Case No. ADJ7247114
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

ARMANDO SANTOS ELIZONDO vs. CROKETT GRAPHICS aka GARED GRAPHICS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL/ WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Armando Santos Elizondo's Petition for Removal of a prior dismissal order. The WCAB clarified that removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will occur and reconsideration is inadequate. Here, the dismissal order was a final order subject to reconsideration, and the petition was untimely. Therefore, the petition for removal was dismissed, though the applicant may still seek to set aside the order within five years of the injury date.

Removal petitionOrder of DismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardExtraordinary remedySubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harmReconsiderationUntimely petitionPetition to set asideDate of injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ7226408
Regular
Feb 16, 2012

Robert Thompson vs. VONS, A SAFEWAY COMPANY

Defendant Vons sought removal and reconsideration of a WCJ's order authorizing applicant's attorney to accept $3,000 for a diminished future earning capacity expert. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, finding the order interlocutory and not a final determination of substantive rights, nor was defendant directly aggrieved. The petition for removal was also dismissed as untimely regarding the reservation of jurisdiction in a prior award and because defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. Ultimately, both the Petition for Removal and Petition for Reconsideration were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated AwardDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC ExpertOgilvie IssueJurisdiction ReservedInterlocutory Order
References
7
Case No. ADJ10249111
Regular
Jul 29, 2016

Steven R. Crosby vs. DWB Security Services

The applicant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it sought review of a non-final order dismissing the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) without prejudice. The Board treated this as a petition for removal, granted it, and rescinded the dismissal order. This action was taken due to the potential for significant prejudice and irreparable harm to the applicant, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board adopted the WCJ's recommendation that the UEBTF was improperly dismissed.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderFinal OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmRescindedReturned to Trial LevelAdministrative Law Judge
References
5
Case No. ADJ4522242 (VNO 0452421) ADJ522765 (VNO 0452422)
Regular
May 26, 2011

PAUL ALLGOOD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted lien claimant's petition for removal to rescind an Administrative Law Judge's order compelling Dr. Baden's appearance at trial. The Board found no good cause was established for Dr. Baden's direct examination and that the order was not a final, appealable decision. Removal was granted to prevent prejudice to the lien claimant, and the order for Dr. Baden's appearance was rescinded. The Board also dismissed the lien claimant's prior petition for reconsideration.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ OrderDr. Scott BadenGood CauseMedical WitnessDirect ExaminationWritten ReportsBoard Rule 10606
References
11
Case No. ADJ1327924
Regular
Jun 24, 2013

FRUCTUOSO CONTRERAS vs. RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS NORTH, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order taking a lien off calendar was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal, finding significant prejudice to the defendant. This was due to the lien claimant's failure to pay the required lien activation fee for a pre-2013 lien. Consequently, the Board ordered the lien dismissed with prejudice for this statutory violation.

Lien activation feePetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissal with prejudiceLabor Code section 4903.06Declaration of Readiness to ProceedLien conferenceInterlocutory orderFinal order
References
12
Case No. ADJ7490731
Regular
Aug 07, 2013

JORGE PEREZ vs. SAN GABRIEL INSULATION, CHARTIS

This case concerns lien claimants whose liens were dismissed with prejudice for failing to appear at a lien conference and not objecting within the prescribed ten days. The lien claimants sought reconsideration, arguing a clerical error caused their non-appearance and that service of the dismissal order was defective as delegated to the defendant. However, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely filed, exceeding the 25-day statutory limit for reconsideration after service of the April 25, 2013 order. The Board found the order was properly considered a notice of intention, allowing delegation of service, and the lien claimants were properly charged with receipt of the dismissal.

Lien claimantsReconsiderationDismissalClerical errorService delegationWCAB Rule 10349Notice of intentionWCAB Rule 10500(a)Timely objectionCompromise and Release Agreement
References
0
Case No. ADJ11276421
Regular
Mar 15, 2019

SABAS GAMBOA vs. FULLERTON PACIFIC INTERIORS, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order dismissing defendant Clark Builders and others, arguing it was improper as Clark Builders was not a party. The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely and from a non-final order. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion to correct the record, as Clark Builders was never properly a party. The Board rescinded the original dismissal order and issued a new order dismissing Arch Indemnity Insurance Company and Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. without prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalOrder DismissingLack of EmploymentClark BuildersArch Indemnity Insurance CompanyGallagher Bassett ServicesInc.Fullerton Pacific Interiors
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 28,070 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