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. 534929
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Pamela Vankoevering

Pamela Vankoevering, an office assistant, sustained a work-related neck injury in October 2018. Following surgery and reaching maximum medical improvement, she retired in January 2020. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) modified a prior decision, ruling that her disability contributed to her retirement and thus entitled her to a reduced earnings award. The Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Vankoevering's disability contributed to her involuntary retirement and that her reduced earnings were a direct result of the disability, not unrelated factors.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityInvoluntary RetirementReduced Earnings AwardMedical ImpairmentCervical Spine InjuryIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
21
Case No. ADJ7434549, ADJ7434554
Regular
Aug 19, 2014

PAMELA GRAHEK vs. NORTHRIDGE HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed **untimely**. The petition was filed more than 25 days after the initial order, exceeding the statutory deadline of 20 days plus 5 days for mailing. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied it on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report. Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimelydismissallien claimantworkers' compensationadministrative law judgeWCJLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Northridge Hospital
References
0
Case No. ADJ3521523 (OAK0322592), ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685), ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Oct 25, 2016

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pamela Zeilstra's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order. The WCAB determined that the workers' compensation judge's decision only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. Furthermore, the petition for removal was denied, as Zeilstra failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ11426222
Regular
Jan 16, 2020

PAMELA HILBORN vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pamela Hilborn's petition for reconsideration against the County of Riverside. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be filed within 25 days of service, with specific rules for extensions. The WCAB emphasized that timely filing with the Board, not just mailing, is a jurisdictional requirement. As the petition was filed significantly beyond the statutory deadline, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationuntimely filingdismissaljurisdictional time limitservice by mailWCJ decisionMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. HaglerScott v Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
4
Case No. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685), ADJ3521523 (OAK 0322592), ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Jan 25, 2016

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by Pamela Zeilstra against Target Stores. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not a final order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. Furthermore, the WCAB denied removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and noted the petition's unverified status as an additional ground for dismissal. The Board found the unverified petition for removal lacked a compelling excuse and had not been cured within a reasonable time, as required by WCAB rules.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
8
Case No. ADJ2912733 (VNO 0470821)
Regular
Dec 02, 2013

PAMELA WARD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pamela Ward's petition for reconsideration. This dismissal was not based on the merits of her petition, but rather on the procedural issue that a petition for reconsideration can only be filed after a final order. The WCAB's prior order granting reconsideration was found not to be a final order under Labor Code § 5900. Therefore, Ward's petition was procedurally defective and consequently dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor Code § 5900Gumilla v. Industrial Acc. Com.Safeway Stores v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Dufault v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Ortiz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.City of Los Angeles v. Industrial Acc. Com.Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
5
Case No. ADJ7021596
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

PAMELA MENDES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Pamela Mendes' petition for reconsideration of an order regarding her claim against the County of Los Angeles. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found Mendes not credible due to inconsistencies in her testimony about her route and the purpose of her travel at the time of her accident. The WCJ determined that Mendes had significantly deviated from her employment duties, and there was no substantial evidence to support her claim that the injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Lamb v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.communications systems analystcourse of employmentdeviation from routeMapQuestPomona Valley Chrysler Jeep v. WCAB (Scovill)
References
4
Case No. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685), ADJ3521523 (WCK 0322592), ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
May 16, 2014

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Pamela Zeilstra against Target Stores and Sedgwick CMS. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely and not filed from a final order, as required by Labor Code section 5900. The Board clarified that interlocutory procedural orders, which do not determine substantive rights, are not subject to reconsideration. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely PetitionFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiability DeterminationWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and Recommendation
References
5
Case No. ADJ8501518
Regular
Mar 21, 2014

PAMELA LIBERA vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Pamela Libera's Petition for Removal. The WCAB found that the Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) is statutorily responsible for providing district office quarters within budgetary constraints. Even if venue is established, the WCAB can calendar hearings at different locations due to limited resources. The WCAB also noted available alternatives like CourtCall for parties facing travel difficulties.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalDivision of Workers' CompensationDWCWCABvenuedistrict officecalenderingCourtCallmandatory settlement conference
References
12
Case No. ADJ7846929
Regular
Jul 03, 2014

PAMELA LEWIS (Deceased) vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses a Petition for Removal filed by Pamela Lewis's estate (represented by Charles Davis, San Francisco City Attorney). The petitioner, likely the defense, voluntarily withdrew their petition. Consequently, the Board has deemed the petition dismissed and will take no further action on the matter.

Petition for RemovalDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity and County of San FranciscoSelf-InsuredPamela LewisDeceasedADJ7846929San Francisco District OfficeOrder of Dismissal
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 49 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