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. SAU8813471
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

KIMBERLY KENNEY vs. SEGUOYAH, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for removal of an order consolidating liens and imposing a temporary stay. The consolidation aims to resolve a common legal issue regarding whether the lien claimant is controlled by a criminally charged physician, which would trigger an automatic stay under Labor Code section 4615. The Board found no due process violation, as the order only stays other lien issues pending the common issue's adjudication. Furthermore, the consolidation serves judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicate rulings on this critical threshold matter.

WCABPetition for RemovalOrder of Consolidation and StayLien ClaimantLabor Code section 4615Due ProcessIssue PreclusionConsolidation OrderWCJFarmers Insurance Exchange
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
Case No. ADJ8213513, ADJ7224783
Regular
Jun 13, 2014

JOSE OROZCO vs. WOODMASTER FURNITURE, INC., ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of orders dismissing a purported lien claimant's lien. The Board found that the Workers' Compensation Judge lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the lien because the claimant had not actually filed a lien with the Board. Consequently, the dismissal orders were rescinded and the matter was returned for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimOrder Dismissing LienWCJLabor Code Section 4903Labor Code Section 4903.05Appeals Board Rule 10774.5Unfiled LienJurisdiction
References
Case No. ADJ800698 (SRO 0128141)
Regular
Apr 25, 2012

Kevin Elliott vs. Fire Protection Unlimited, Specialty Risk

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order compelling service of medical reports was not a final order. However, construing the petition as a request for removal, the Board granted it, finding a potential untimeliness issue with the lien claimant's lien under Labor Code section 4903.5. The Board rescinded the original order and returned the case to the trial level for a lien conference to determine the existence, filing date, and validity of the lien.

Labor Code section 4903.5Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder to Compel Service of Medical Reportslien claimantRS MedicalOrder Approving Compromise and Releaseuntimely filed lienlaches defenselien conference
References
Case No. ADJ10975246
Regular
Oct 15, 2020

MAXIMILIANO VILLEGAS vs. AMETEK, INC.;, THE HARTFORD, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration after their lien was dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal order, and denied the defendant's petition to dismiss. The Board found the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof, as the lien claimant did not become a party until after the underlying claim was resolved, rendering the dismissal rule inapplicable. Furthermore, no lien conference or trial had been ordered off-calendar, negating another basis for dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantLack of ProsecutionWCAB Rule 10888Declaration of Readiness to ProceedBurden of ProofOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseElectronic Adjudication Management SystemExecutive Order N-68-20Labor Code section 5909
References
Case No. ADJ8279903
Regular
Nov 30, 2015

NIEVES ORTIZ vs. JH DESIGN GROUP, THE HARTFORD

Lien claimants sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order consolidating and staying their liens, alleging due process violations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed their Petition for Reconsideration because the order was interlocutory and not a final determination of substantive rights. The Board also denied their Petition for Removal, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge's report. The decision clarifies that interlocutory procedural orders, like consolidation, are not subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLien ClaimantsOrder of ConsolidationStay of LiensDue ProcessInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive Right
References
Case No. ADJ9688952
Regular
Aug 21, 2018

JOSE GARCIA vs. THE SHADY CANYON GOLF CLUB, INC., CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

This case involves lien claimant Mesa Pharmacy seeking reconsideration of a prior order staying its lien under Labor Code section 4615. Over 19,000 cases, including this one, were consolidated for the common issue of whether Mesa's liens fall under section 4615. The WCAB rescinded the prior order, returning the matter to the trial level for the assigned judge to determine if this case should be excluded from the consolidation. This decision is not a final determination on the merits of Mesa's lien.

Mesa PharmacyLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4615Stay of LienOrder of ConsolidationWCAB Rule 10589Common Issues of Fact and LawOwnership and ControlCriminal ProceedingsJohn Garbino
References
Case No. ADJ2975271 (OXN 0141978)
Regular
Feb 09, 2018

BAUDELIO CHAVARRIA vs. AMERICAN LANDSCAPE, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for removal, rescinding a July 1, 2015, order that stayed proceedings on lien claims filed by Landmark Medical Management. This rescission was based on a conflict with a prior, overarching stay order issued on May 14, 2015, in a consolidated matter. The Board found that the earlier stay order takes precedence and ordered this matter consolidated with the previously stayed cases pending before WCJ Devine.

Petition for RemovalSupplemental Minute OrderLien ClaimsCriminal IndictmentsCivil ComplaintConflicting Stay OrderPrior Stay OrderRescindedAppeals BoardConsolidation
References
Case No. LBO 354963
Regular
Nov 27, 2007

RIGOBERTO JIMENEZ vs. BLUE COLLAR, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it sought to review an interlocutory order, not a final decision on substantive rights. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding the lien claimant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as required for this extraordinary remedy. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the lien claim.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder VacatingInterim OrderWCJLabor Code section 5313Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderPetition to Disallow Lien
References
Showing 1-10 of 9,708 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