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. 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. ADJ7044674
Regular
Apr 12, 2010

AHMAD SADIGHI vs. CITY OF DALY CITY, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order vacating a compromise and release was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the case for further proceedings. This action was taken to ensure the defendant's due process rights by providing them notice and an opportunity to present evidence and arguments regarding the applicant's request to vacate the settlement. The WCJ should have scheduled a hearing or issued a notice allowing parties to address the merits of vacating the compromise and release.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseDue ProcessEvidentiary HearingFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900Substantive Rights and LiabilitiesNotice and Opportunity to Be Heard
References
Case No. ADJ9120917, ADJ6899995
Regular
Sep 16, 2016

RICK STEIN vs. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH

The WCAB dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order vacating a prior order approving a compromise and release was not a final order. The Board granted the defendant's petition for removal to amend the vacating order, specifying the matter should be set for a status conference. This action was taken under WCAB Rule 10859, allowing the WCJ to rescind an order and conduct further proceedings within 30 days. The case is returned to the WCJ to determine if good cause exists to set aside the compromise and release.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOrder Vacating Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJLabor Code Section 132(a)Cumulative Trauma InjuryLeft Knee Injury
References
Case No. ADJ9060378
Regular
Apr 21, 2014

MELISSA OVERTON vs. THE PAPER BAG PRINCESS, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over applicant Melissa Overton's deposition, specifically regarding the presence of an employer representative and videotaping. A WCJ vacated a prior submission order to compel a psychiatric evaluation to assess the applicant's fitness for deposition under those conditions. The defendant sought removal, arguing the WCJ erred in vacating submission and ordering further discovery. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order and submission order, and returned the case for reassignment to a new WCJ to resolve the discovery dispute.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionFurther DiscoveryProtective OrdersDeposition LocationEmployer RepresentativePsychiatric EvaluationIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaWCJ Reassignment
References
Case No. ADJ6780734
Regular
Sep 08, 2011

Venessa Vielma vs. The Pape Group, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the WCJ issued an Order Approving Compromise and Release one day after the jurisdictional 15-day period to act on the applicant's petition for reconsideration had expired. This untimely action rendered the WCJ's Order and the prior Findings, Award and Order without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Board rescinded both the Order Approving Compromise and Release and the Findings Award and Order. The matter is returned to the trial level for further review of the settlement by the WCJ.

Writ of MandatePetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseFindings Award and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
Case No. ADJ2775636 (FRE 0205945)
Regular
Oct 14, 2010

KAREN MORRIS vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS/SILICON SYSTEMS, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY Administered By CNA CLAIMS PLUS

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order that vacated submission and appointed an IME, arguing discovery was complete. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, finding the order was procedural and not a final determination. However, the Board granted removal and rescinded the order, recognizing the WCJ's admission of error. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOrder Vacating SubmissionMedical-Legal ExaminationLabor Code §5701Independent Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalInterlocutory Order
References
Case No. ADJ6913723
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

ZACHARY GRAM vs. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order changing venue was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board then granted removal on its own motion to clarify the record and resolve conflicting procedural orders regarding the venue change. Specifically, the Board vacated prior orders, including an order granting a venue change and a subsequent order rescinding it. The matter is returned to the trial level for a determination on the defendant's request for a venue change.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationVenueLabor Code Section 5310Interlocutory OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmRescind
References
Case No. ADJ3736897 (RIV 0044021)
Regular
Apr 07, 2014

TERESA BOLTON vs. PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petitions for removal, finding the defendant's petition for reconsideration untimely. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order vacating a prior minute order that required the defendant to pay $300 to the lien claimant. Consequently, the November 27, 2013 minute order, requiring the defendant to pay the costs, was reinstated. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWCJ AuthorityMinute OrderLien ClaimantCosts AwardRescinded OrderReinstated OrderAppeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ9496892
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

JUNE JONES vs. CALIFORNIA SPECIAL PATROL, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Applicant's attorney sought reconsideration of an Order Rescinding Submission, Order Vacating Finding and Order, and Order to Develop the Record dated June 27, 2025, arguing further record development was unnecessary. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition and denial if treated as a petition for removal. The Appeals Board timely acted on the petition but noted issues with notice of transmission to the parties. They dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the underlying order non-final, and denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Rescinding SubmissionFindings and OrderLabor Code section 5909Transmission of CaseElectronic Adjudication Management SystemNotice of TransmissionFinal Order
References
Case No. ADJ455873 (LAO 0886539)
Regular
Sep 26, 2016

JAMES TOWNSEND vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, HARBOR DIVISION

This case concerns a lien claimant, BCP Collections, Inc., seeking reconsideration of an order denying its lien for $\$8,661.87$. The initial denial was based on BCP's alleged failure to provide proof of service for its Notice of Intention to allow the lien. However, the administrative law judge later vacated this order, recognizing proof of service had been timely filed. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed BCP's petition for reconsideration because the rescinded order was not a final decision. As no final determination of the lien currently exists, reconsideration is procedurally improper.

BCP CollectionsNotice of IntentionProof of ServiceEAMSLien ClaimPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing LienLien ConferenceRescinded OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
Showing 1-10 of 10,610 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