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. ADJ 8560911
Regular
May 02, 2016

TIM MCDONALD vs. SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, TIG SPECIALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the original award of 73% permanent disability and attorney fees. The Board determined that the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule, not an older schedule, should be used for rating the applicant's cumulative trauma injury claim filed in 2012. The case is returned to the trial level for a new determination of permanent disability using the 2005 schedule, affirming findings on injury and medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Francisco 49ersTIG Specialty Companyindustrial injuryprofessional athletefootball playerstrong safetycumulative traumapermanent disabilityapportionment
References
Case No. LAO 0827740
Regular
Jan 15, 2008

GUILLERMO MALACHOWSKI vs. FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES

The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the lien claimant's petition. The lien claimant's letter, treated as a petition, was untimely filed and also failed to meet the verification and specificity requirements for a valid petition for reconsideration. Consequently, the Board reversed its grant of reconsideration and dismissed the lien claimant's purported petition.

Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationNotice of intention to submitSupplemental Findings and OrderWCJUnverified petitionSkeletal petitionFinal orderLabor Code section 5900Labor Code section 5902
References
Case No. SFO 0417742
Regular
Jul 11, 2008

WYNEMA RATTO vs. CENTURY 21 EXCELLENT HOMES, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE, administered by AARLA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding the challenged WCJ order was not a final determination of substantive rights. However, the WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, agreeing the order to produce the entire claims file was overbroad. The WCAB amended the order to require the claims file be produced at trial, allowing the WCJ to determine specific discovery needs if justified by the lien claimant.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationDismissed PetitionGranted PetitionClaims FileOverbroad OrderGood CauseIrreparable HarmReal Estate Broker's AssociateStipulated Awards
References
Case No. ADJ8183477
Regular
Jan 14, 2016

DOLORES MOSELEY vs. NOIA RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., ICW GROUP/INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Dolores Moseley's petition for reconsideration. The petition was untimely as it sought reconsideration of an award made over a year prior to filing. Furthermore, the petition was unverified and lacked specificity regarding the issues and legal arguments. Finally, the orders Moseley sought to reconsider were either vacated or deemed non-final procedural decisions, rendering the petition moot.

Labor Code Section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Dismissing PetitionOrder Vacating Trial DateStipulations with Request for AwardTimelinessJurisdictionalVerification
References
Case No. ADJ8743098
Regular
Feb 07, 2017

REGULO HERNANDEZ AGUILAR vs. PRIMA PIZZA d/b/a DOMINOS PIZZA, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought to overturn an order compelling the deposition of their claims adjuster, arguing it was intended to harass. However, the WCAB found the order was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required for removal.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ Orderdepositionclaims adjusterPetition to QuashPetition to Compelfinal orderinterlocutory order
References
Case No. ADJ10030620, ADJ10030622
Regular
Jan 12, 2018

ANTONIO CORONA SOSA vs. DANA INVESTMENT LLC, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, Marwan Khader Alrifai

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration from an order joining a substantial shareholder due to the order not being a final determination. However, the WCAB granted a petition for removal, treating the filing as such, because the shareholder was allegedly denied due process by not being properly served and given an opportunity to respond. The WCAB rescinded the joinder order, returning the matter to the trial level to allow the shareholder to present their case. This decision ensures due process by permitting the shareholder to respond to the joinder petition and present evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSubstantial ShareholderDue ProcessPetition for JoinderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ987728 (GOL 0100705) ADJ361855 (GOL 0100706)
Regular
Sep 22, 2009

CYNTHIA SIEGERT vs. COTTAGE HEALTH SYSTEM; permissibly self-insured, administered by KEENAN \u0026 ASSOCIATES

This case concerns a defendant's attempt to appeal a non-final order that took the matter off calendar for further medical record development. The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration, deeming it improvidently granted as the original order was not a final decision. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no irreparable harm or significant prejudice. This action effectively dismissed the defendant's procedural challenges to the WCJ's management of the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalVacating OrderDismissing PetitionDenying PetitionAgreed Medical EvaluatorFurther DiscoveryAlmarazOgilvie
References
Case No. ADJ3882107
Regular
Oct 04, 2012

PETER ARCARESE vs. LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL H. MILLER, STATE FARM CALIFORNIA, WC CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Peter Arcarese's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The petition was also dismissed as consecutive, attempting to relitigate issues previously addressed after a prior dismissal. Furthermore, the request for removal was denied as Arcarese failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderDismissed PetitionPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedyWrit of Review
References
Case No. ADJ8283873
Regular
Jun 07, 2016

DANIEL CRUZ vs. BROWN SHOE COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed in error, mistakenly addressing an order that did not exist. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the Administrative Law Judge's order dismissing the defendant's own petition to dismiss for lack of prosecution. The dismissal of the defendant's petition was appropriate and the Board's actions are affirmed.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing PetitionLack of ProsecutionRule 10582Application for AdjudicationPetition for Order Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationQME
References
Showing 1-10 of 15,969 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