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. ADJ7038469
Regular
Sep 17, 2014

AZIZA SAYED vs. GIORGIO ARMANI, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant's petition to appeal an Administrative Director's Independent Bill Review (IBR) determination was dismissed. The Board found the petition premature as it was not first heard by a trial level Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). Additionally, the petition failed to comply with numerous procedural requirements, including proper captioning, verification, service, and stating specific grounds for appeal. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition appealing the IBR determination were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Bill ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative DirectorLabor Code section 4603.6MAXIMUS Federal ServicesInc.Lien claimantOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleWCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure
References
0
Case No. ADJ317667 (SDO 0346814)
Regular
Nov 15, 2019

NANCY COBB vs. BIOSITE INCORPORATED, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, YORK RISK SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from an intermediate procedural order, not a final decision that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and determined reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Finally, the Petition for Disqualification was denied based on the Workers' Compensation Judge's report. The case is returned to the Workers' Compensation Judge to issue a decision on the submitted issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for Disqualificationfinal ordersubstantive rightliabilitythreshold issueinterlocutory orderprocedural decision
References
7
Case No. ADJ6504311
Regular
Apr 08, 2009

Nelson Amaya vs. Barrett Business Services

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of a WCJ's order that found insufficient evidence for an injury determination and ordered further record development. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order was not a final determination of substantive rights. Treating the petition as a Petition for Removal, the Board denied it, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify this extraordinary remedy. The defendant's arguments regarding QME relevance and applicant's burden of proof were not addressed as the petition was procedurally dismissed.

AOE/COELabor Code section 4060psychiatric claimcumulative traumaWCJPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalfinal ordersubstantive rightssignificant prejudice
References
9
Case No. ADJ10345987, ADJ10346315
Regular
Jul 26, 2016

MIGUEL SILVAN vs. NKECHI AFRICAN CAFE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Miguel Silvan's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied his Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial. The WCJ's report, adopted by the WCAB, determined the appealed decision was procedural and interlocutory. Therefore, both the Petition for Reconsideration and Removal were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Houghton

This case concerns a petition to annul a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights, which had found that the petitioner, an employer, discriminated against an employee (complainant-respondent) based on age. The Supreme Court, New York County, transferred the petition, which was subsequently granted. The court annulled the Division's determination, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of age discrimination. The record indicated that the complainant was terminated due to a failure to meet sales quotas and performance expectations, rather than age-related reasons. Evidence presented highlighted that a younger predecessor was also terminated for poor performance, the complainant's performance was significantly worse than her peers, she was hired at age 53, and the workplace had a diverse age demographic with older, high-performing employees.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSales PerformanceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawHuman Rights LawExecutive LawEvidentiary StandardsBurden of ProofAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ8063872
Regular
Nov 07, 2014

JOSE SANCHEZ vs. FOREVER 21, INC., FEDERAL INS./CHUBB SERVICES CORP.

The applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination is dismissed because it was filed improperly. The correct procedure to appeal an IMR determination is to file a "Petition Appealing Administrative Director's IMR Determination" at the trial level, not a Petition for Reconsideration with the Appeals Board. Furthermore, the applicant failed to attach the IMR determination itself to the petition, hindering any review of its merits. The Board also noted procedural deficiencies by both parties, including failure to provide State Bar numbers.

Independent Medical ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationUtilization ReviewAdministrative DirectorWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor CodeMaximusRFAWCJPetition Appealing Administrative Director's IMR Determination
References
0
Case No. ADJ1524475 (RIV 0046648) ADJ4641802 (RIV 0046649
Regular
Mar 01, 2019

BONNIE L. BENTLEY vs. SORA MANAGEMENT, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOC. for Legion Insurance, In Liquidation

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and a Petition for Removal challenging a WCJ's order vacating submission and allowing further development of the record. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition for removal were dismissed and denied, respectively.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderVacating SubmissionFurther Development of RecordSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary RemedyWCJ Report
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szpilzinger v. New York State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner challenged a determination by the respondent Division of Human Rights, which found that the petitioner had discriminated against a complainant by refusing to rent an apartment due to her race. The Division of Human Rights had ordered the petitioner to pay $25,000 in compensatory damages. The court dismissed the petition and confirmed the respondent’s determination. The evidence presented supported the finding that the petitioner discriminated against the claimant on the basis of her race by informing her the apartment was unavailable, while telling other inquirers it was available. The court also declined to reduce the award for compensatory damages, finding it not shocking to the court’s sense of fairness.

discriminationrace discriminationhousing discriminationapartment rentalcompensatory damagesExecutive Lawappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceshocking to court’s sense of fairnessDivision of Human Rights
References
2
Case No. ADJ11616593 ADJ11616594 ADJ11616595 ADJ11616596
Regular
Nov 06, 2019

MARIA RODRIGUEZ vs. VALLARTA SUPERMARKETS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration and removal from an applicant following an administrative law judge's order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, deeming the ALJ's order interlocutory and not a "final" determination of substantive rights. The Board also denied the removal petition, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Ultimately, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed and the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ DecisionReplacement Panel QME
References
6
Case No. ADJ3033041 (SBR 0286165)
Regular
Dec 09, 2014

MARIO MORALES, SR. vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition to appeal an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination. The petition was dismissed because it failed to comply with WCAB rules regarding caption information, service of process, verification, and specificity of grounds. Specifically, the applicant did not properly identify the defendant, failed to serve all parties or the IMR Unit, and did not verify the petition or provide detailed grounds for appeal. The WCAB emphasized that appeals must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including filing at the correct venue and allowing for a WCJ decision before appealing to the Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewUtilization ReviewPetition to ReopenStipulated AwardElectronic Adjudication Management SystemAdministrative DirectorWCAB Rules of Practice and ProcedureCalifornia Code of RegulationsLabor Code
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 20,215 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