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. ADJ9173159
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

GARY COTTLE vs. TONY'S EXPRESS, CALIFORNIA TRUCKERS' SAFETY ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior administrative law judge's (WCJ) order. This order addressed penalties for unreasonable delay in payment and sanctions for bad faith litigation. Crucially, the WCAB has not received a petition for reconsideration from defendant CTSA and requires them to submit a copy of their petition and proof of timely filing within 20 days. Failure to comply will result in the WCAB proceeding with only the applicant's petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5814Unreasonable DelayCompensation PaymentLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith LitigationLienTimely FiledProof of Service
References
0
Case No. ADJ6991789
Regular
Oct 19, 2010

BONNIE MCCLINTIC vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding a finding that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury. The applicant's own petition for reconsideration, arguing the evidence supported her claim of injury to her psyche, low back, neck, and jaw, was denied. The Board granted the applicant's request to file supplemental petitions in response to the proceedings. The defendant's initial petition was dismissed because they withdrew it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDepartment of Motor VehiclesState Compensation Insurance FundFindings of FactPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionWCJ ReportApplicantDefendantIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. ADJ3393289 (LAO0594595)
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

BERNARD WILLIAM PONZI vs. LOS ANGELES MISSIONARY SOCIETY, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's request to file a supplemental petition for reconsideration but dismissed the original petition. The original petition was untimely, unverified, and skeletal, failing to meet procedural requirements for seeking reconsideration of prior orders. As no final order has issued since September 8, 1997, the applicant was not deemed aggrieved by a final decision. The WCAB recommended the applicant contact the Information and Assistance Officer for case status inquiries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardLien OrderPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionSkeletal PetitionAggrieved PartyLabor Code Section 5900
References
0
Case No. ADJ1054155 (LAO 0854446) ADJ1247741 (LAO 0854447) ADJ1895803 (LAO 0854448)
Regular
May 03, 2011

HIRITI OKUAMICHAEL vs. PAUL OWENS SHOES INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This amended order clarifies that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the February 8, 2011 Findings and Awards. This reconsideration aims to allow the Board to thoroughly study the factual and legal issues, including those to be raised in the applicant's supplemental petition. The applicant's request to file a supplemental petition has also been granted and reaffirmed. All future communications regarding these cases should be directed to the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Supplemental PetitionReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10848Findings and AwardsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersWCABADJ1054155ADJ1247741ADJ1895803
References
0
Case No. BAK 0139458
Regular
Jan 18, 2008

NORMAN T. WILLIAMS vs. PEPSI CO/FRITO LAY, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration and removal because it was untimely filed. The claimant's representative admitted receiving the notice of intent to dismiss on August 28, 2007, making the filing deadline September 24, 2007, but the petition was not filed until November 19, 2007. Even if timely, the Board would have denied the petition as the claimant offered no good cause for the delay.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss Lien ClaimWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeSettlement AuthorityOfficial Address RecordService by MailTimeliness
References
10
Case No. ADJ10227826
Regular
Mar 02, 2020

CARMEN PINEDA vs. MISSION FOODS (GRUMA CORPORATION), ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the applicant's petition because of discrepancies regarding its timely filing. While the applicant's attorney signed the petition on December 30, 2019, and the EAMS filing date shows December 31, 2019, the applicant must provide definitive proof of filing on December 30, 2019. Failure to provide this proof, including an EAMS Batch ID, will result in the petition being dismissed as untimely. The Board is issuing an Order to Show Cause why the petition should not be dismissed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationEAMSFiling DateTimelinessElectronic FilingBatch IDProof of ServiceReconsideration GrantedNotice of Intention to Dismiss
References
2
Case No. ADJ8191769, ADJ8195704
Regular
Sep 28, 2015

GILBERT FLORES vs. GREIF, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA

This case involves a petition for removal or reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The primary reason for dismissal was that the petition was untimely filed, exceeding the 20-day deadline following personal service of the WCJ's decision. The WCAB clarified that timely filing requires receipt by the Board within the deadline, not just mailing. Since the petition was filed more than 20 days after personal service, it was jurisdictional invalid and therefore dismissed.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingPersonal ServiceWCJ Decision20-Day LimitJurisdictional Time LimitAppeals Board AuthorityReport and RecommendationFinal Order
References
4
Case No. ADJ2948353 (SAL 0116403) ADJ803362 (SAL 0116404) ADJ2320380 (SAL 0116407)
Regular
May 04, 2009

BRIAN CARRASCO vs. CLARK PEST CONTROL, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The applicant filed a petition alleging bias by the WCJ based on 21 instances of alleged misconduct. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for removal, finding it untimely and unverified, as the applicant did not claim to be aggrieved by the last order and the petition was filed beyond the 20-day limit. Furthermore, the Board denied the disqualification petition because it was not supported by a verified affidavit and the judge in question was not currently assigned to the cases for trial. These procedural deficiencies led to the dismissal of the removal petition and denial of the disqualification petition.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ Steven D. TuanBias AllegationsUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionWCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10452Labor Code Section 5310
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 18,564 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