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. ADJ15407478
Regular
May 22, 2025

MARIA CORDOVA vs. GRUMA CORPORATION, ARCH INDEMNITY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed defendant's petitions for reconsideration and removal, challenging a WCJ's order to quash a notice to produce an out-of-state adjuster. The Board determined that the WCJ's order was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order subject to reconsideration, and that removal was not warranted due to a lack of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the Board found the petition moot as the notice to produce had expired or was explicitly quashed. The defendants and their attorneys were admonished for causing delays and filing a moot petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Quashing Notice to ProduceInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderMootnessNotice to ProduceLabor Code § 5909WCJ
References
Case No. ADJ11344177
Regular
Jul 23, 2019

RONALD BELL, JR. vs. ALLIED UNIVERSAL TOPCO, LLC, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding a prior order that quashed subpoenas and directed the defendant to produce documents from a third party. The WCAB found the original order exceeded the administrative law judge's (ALJ) authority by ordering the defendant to produce documents they could not control and by going beyond the scope of the motion to quash. This decision ensures the defendant's right to object to discovery without being compelled to produce third-party records they lack the power to obtain. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

RemovalOrder Quashing SubpoenasOrder to ProduceCustodian of RecordsSubpoena Duces TecumDiscovery StatutesLabor Code § 130Code of Civil ProcedureInterlocutory OrdersStanding
References
Case No. ADJ8500075
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

RUDI QUINTEROS vs. STAMOULES PRODUCE, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal after the WCJ rescinded an order approving a compromise and release (C&R). The applicant claimed a "change of heart" as the basis for setting aside the C&R, which the defendant argued was insufficient grounds. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding the WCJ's order and substituting an order suspending the C&R approval. The case was returned to the WCJ to hold a status conference to allow the applicant to present arguments for setting aside the C&R.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalCompromise and ReleasePetition to Set AsideOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOrder Rescinding OrderGood CauseFraudMistakeUndue Influence
References
Case No. ADJ8050106 ADJ9468937 ADJ9154032
Regular
Nov 03, 2018

ANTONIO VAZQUEZ vs. CARSON TRAILERS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was taken from an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision issues. The order pertains to multiple cases involving Antonio Vazquez and Carson Trailers. The WCJ's order directing the use of a specific bill reviewer was deemed an evidentiary/procedural matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderEvidentiary OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ8148833
Regular
Nov 24, 2015

SHIRLEY WADDELL vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/IHSS, legally uninsured, adjusted by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves an applicant's repeated attempts to avoid producing pre-injury medical records from Kaiser Permanente, arguing privacy violations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order to produce records was not a final order. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as the WCJ had specifically excluded mental health and other sensitive records. The Board emphasized that prior medical records are essential for establishing causation and apportionment in workers' compensation claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder to Produce RecordsKaiser PermanenteApplicant in Pro PerRight to PrivacySubpoena Duces TecumGood CauseAffidavit
References
Case No. ADJ9274305
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

SALVADOR REYES vs. AVP&H A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Salvador Reyes's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot, as the underlying issue regarding a specific Qualified Medical Examiner appeared to be resolved. Both petitions were denied as they did not address substantive rights or liabilities. The order reflects standard practice for non-final and moot petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityMootnessQMEOrder to CompelMeet and Confer
References
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. 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. ADJ6771140
Regular
Dec 13, 2013

YESENIA HIDALGO vs. RED CHAMBER COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a discovery order to produce records, which was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board ruled that discovery orders are interlocutory and not final decisions, thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the petition was deemed untimely. The Board also denied the lien claimant's request for removal and warned their attorney against frivolous filings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalDenial of RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery RulingOrder to Produce RecordsLien ClaimantPre-trial Conference
References
Showing 1-10 of 8,627 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