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. ADJ3399937 (VNO 0423516 ADJ8997142 ADJ10559387 ADJ7656828
Regular
Feb 27, 2019

DAVE ZADA vs. ALPRO MILLWORKING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Dave Zada's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition untimely, successive, and skeletal, failing to meet procedural requirements for reconsideration. Zada also did not demonstrate how he was aggrieved by the prior WCAB decision. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPro PerSuccessive PetitionUntimely PetitionSkeletal PetitionAggrieved PartyJurisdictional Time LimitVerified PleadingsMaterial EvidenceProof of Service
References
Case No. ADJ1574286
Regular
Oct 23, 2013

JUTTA BENNETT vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FRONTIER INSURANCE, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the California Physician Network's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not timely filed. The petition was first received by the Board on August 29, 2013, well past the August 9th deadline after the July 10th order dismissing the lien. Furthermore, the petition was unverified and failed to state any specific legal grounds for reconsideration as required by statute. The Board also noted that even if the merits were considered, the petition would have been denied due to its "skeletal" nature and lack of evidentiary support.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLien ClaimantLien conferenceNotice of Intent to Dismiss LienOrder Dismissing LienPetition for ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSLabor CodeTimely Filed
References
Case No. ADJ11124817
Regular
Mar 25, 2019

GASPAR VILLEGAS vs. INTERIOR RESOURCES, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, INC.

This case involves defendant's petitions challenging an order awarding interpreter costs. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for removal and treated the January 22, 2019 petition as a timely petition for reconsideration, which was granted. The Board also dismissed the February 4, 2019 petition as untimely or moot. The January 7, 2019 order was affirmed, but amended to award $228.00 in Labor Code section 5811 costs.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportsLabor Code 5811 Costsinterpreting costsfinal ordersubstantive rightthreshold issueuntimely petitionmoot petition
References
Case No. ADJ6501139
Regular
Mar 09, 2010

AARON GOMEZ vs. SUNWOOD DOORS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, which argued that Pacific Employers' Insurance Company, the terminal carrier, was a necessary party. The Board adopted the presiding judge's report, finding no basis for removal. Additionally, the applicant's petition for removal was dismissed as untimely. The case will proceed to trial without the joined carrier.

Petition for RemovalContinuous Trauma ClaimTerminal CarrierDue Process RightsPetition for Leave to File Supplemental PetitionApplicant's AnswerPetition for SanctionsPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOrder for TrialJoinder of Party
References
Case No. ADJ13794622
Regular
Oct 22, 2025

LASHONDA JOHNSON vs. MACYS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Defendant filed a petition for removal against an order from the WCJ that had rescinded a prior dismissal of the applicant's claim, arguing the applicant's petition for reconsideration was untimely. The Appeals Board determined that the applicant's petition for reconsideration was, in fact, timely due to an extension for out-of-state service. As such, the Board concluded that the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and therefore denied the petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rescinding DecisionVacating SubmissionRule 10961Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalUntimely PetitionAppeals Board JurisdictionWCJ Report and RecommendationExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ6943627
Regular
Feb 11, 2013

BILL MCINNES vs. VICENTE FOODS, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves untimely petitions for reconsideration filed by the applicant, Bill McInnes. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed these petitions because they were filed more than twenty days after the WCJ's decision, with no mailing extension applicable due to personal service. Even if timely, the petitions would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report. Additionally, the applicant's attorney's letter, attempting to serve as a reconsideration petition, was also dismissed as both untimely and insufficient.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Mailing ExtensionCode of Civil Procedure Section 1013WCAB Rule 10507Jurisdictional Time LimitPersonal ServiceStrom v. WCABSkeletal Petition
References
Case No. ADJ8266893
Regular
May 21, 2013

ALI JIRDE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - DISTRICT 6, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on March 29, 2013, more than 20 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was personally served on March 6, 2013. As the decision was personally served, the five-day mailing extension under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 did not apply. The WCAB noted that timely filing is jurisdictional and therefore lacked the power to grant the untimely petition. However, defendants retain the option to file a Petition to Reopen.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitPersonal ServiceMailing ExtensionLabor Code Section 5903WCAB Rule 10507Petition to ReopenWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ's Report and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ7626709
Regular
Mar 07, 2014

JUDY WANG vs. CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns Judy Wang's workers' compensation claim against Cedars Sinai Medical Center. The Appeals Board dismissed Wang's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. Specifically, the petition was filed more than 20 days after the WCJ's decision, and personal service of the decision negated any mailing extension. The Board noted that even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely PetitionLabor Code section 5903Jurisdictional Time LimitAppeals BoardWCJPersonal ServiceMailing ExtensionWCAB Rule 10507Dismissal
References
Case No. ADJ2494845 (AHM 0113398)
Regular
Mar 21, 2011

DONALD W. STENERSON vs. TWR FRAMING/TWR ENTERPRISES, INC., CHARTIS COSTA MESA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Donald W. Stenerson's second petition for reconsideration. This dismissal occurred because Stenerson had previously filed a petition for reconsideration that was denied, and filing a second petition challenging the same original decision and the Board's prior denial is procedurally impermissible. Such successive petitions are barred, and the proper avenue for appeal after a denied petition is a writ of review. Additionally, the Board noted the petition was untimely.

Petition for reconsiderationDismissedConsecutive petitionSuccessive petitionTimely petitionWrit of reviewWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeCrowe Glass Company
References
Showing 1-10 of 13,851 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