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. ADJ11377839 ADJ11377840
Regular
Jul 09, 2019

OLIVIA BARAJAS vs. JUSTIN VINEYARDS & WINERY, LLC, BROADSPIRE

The applicant sought reconsideration or removal of an order compelling her attendance at a deposition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely and denied the petition for removal. The WCAB found the order compelling attendance was an interlocutory discovery order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for the extraordinary remedy of removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceDepositionWCJDiscovery OrderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ9997985, ADJ9997986, ADJ10037755
Regular
Apr 10, 2017

DAVID LIVINGSTON vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC.;, PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION;, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for removal filed by the defendant. The WCAB found the petition was untimely because it was filed one day after the 20-day deadline for removal following personal service. This deadline is jurisdictional, and the WCAB cannot consider petitions filed outside this timeframe. Therefore, the petition was dismissed with no request for supplemental pleading granted.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingPersonal ServiceWCJ DecisionAppeals Board RuleJurisdictional Time LimitSupplemental PleadingWCAB Rule 10848WCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10507
References
Case No. ADJ270028 (VNO 0373478)
Regular
Mar 12, 2012

LISA TOWNSEND vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's first Petition for Reconsideration as untimely and seeking review of a non-final order. The claimant's initial petition was filed after the deadline due to being received after 5 PM on the filing date. However, the Board granted reconsideration of the second petition concerning a contempt order and fine against the lien claimant's representative, to allow further review of the factual and legal issues. The Board also admonished the claimant for violating page limit and document attachment rules in their filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder RescindingOrder Allowing LienOrder of ContemptLien ClaimantWCJuntimely petitionnon-final orderdue process
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. ADJ8149506
Regular
Jul 19, 2017

MARTHA BELTRAN vs. KIMCO STAFFING/KIMSTAFF HR, SEDGWICK CMS

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: A Petition for Reconsideration was filed by a lien claimant on June 9, 2017, challenging Findings and Orders issued on May 15, 2017. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) issued an order rescinding those Findings and Orders on June 26, 2017. However, this rescission occurred 16 days after the petition, exceeding the 15-day limit under Rule 10859, rendering the rescission order void. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to affirm the WCJ's intent, validating the rescinded Findings and Orders.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder RescindingFindings and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeLien ClaimantVoid OrderAffirm OrderKimco StaffingSedgwick CMS
References
Case No. ADJ10496894
Regular
Aug 25, 2017

Thurman Rogers, Jr. vs. CSI ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Thurman Rogers, Jr.'s Petition for Reconsideration. The petition sought review of an interim order vacating prior findings, which is not a final order from which reconsideration can be sought. The Board found the applicant's arguments regarding union dispute resolution procedures were without merit in this context. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as improperly filed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating OrderRule 10843International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersIBEW Local 100alternative dispute resolutionfinal ordersubstantive right
References
Case No. ADJ3860512 (OAK 0238823)
Regular
Feb 18, 2010

, Applicant vs. COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior findings and order. The dismissal was based on the applicant's submission of a petition that grossly exceeded the 25-page limit set by WCAB rules. Additionally, the petition improperly attempted to appeal existing exhibits already in the record. The WCAB warned the applicant of potential sanctions for future non-compliance with filing rules.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalWCJ ReportPage LimitationRule 10845(a)Rule 10232(a)(10)SanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Rule 10561
References
Case No. ADJ3219750 (LAO 0795115)
Regular
Dec 11, 2010

RAFAELA GARCIA vs. SILVERTON LAW OFFICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted removal and rescinded a WCJ's order to show cause why sanctions should not be assessed against lien claimant VQ OrthoCare. This order stemmed from VQ OrthoCare's litigation manager inadvertently checking the wrong box on an e-form, requesting a status conference instead of a lien conference. The Board found no legal basis for sanctions under the applicable rules, as the error was a mistake on a recently amended form and did not constitute bad faith or frivolous conduct. The Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed as the order was interlocutory.

Petition for RemovalOrder to Show CauseSanctionsDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLien ClaimantElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSInterlocutory OrdersRescind OrderLabor Code Section 5310
References
Showing 1-10 of 10,118 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