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. ADJ3808038 (LAO 0819022)
Regular
Feb 11, 2010

NICOLAS F. BENINKOFF (Deceased), LORENA BENINKOFF (Widow) vs. DARCO METAL SURFACING, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied petitions for removal and reconsideration from lien claimants and the defendant, and denied the applicant's reconsideration petition. Lien claimants Kan and Ace's petition for removal was denied as they failed to show substantial prejudice, and their reconsideration petition was dismissed as the prior order was not final. The applicant's reconsideration petition was denied because her claim for home healthcare services was deemed an untimely lien claim under Labor Code section 4903.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationLien ClaimantsUntimely LienLabor Code section 4903.5Labor Code section 5405Home Healthcare ServicesMedical TreatmentTransportation Expenses
References
5
Case No. ADJ10559387 (VNO 0423516)
Regular
Apr 13, 2020

DAVE ZADA vs. ALPRO MILL WORKING, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition to be skeletal, lacking specific grounds, failure to cite the record, and crucially, it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. No timely cure or explanation was provided for the unverified petition. The WCAB also noted that it would have denied the petition on the merits based on the WCJ's report had procedural defects not led to dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesWCJ ReportVacating GrantDismissing PetitionVerification RequirementMaterial Evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ300431 (FRE 0203618) ADJ1896245 (FRE 0203619) ADJ3576423 (FRE 0203620)
Regular
Jan 14, 2014

Sherrill Perkins vs. Fresno Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal but granted her petition for reconsideration. Applicant's 40-page petition for reconsideration violated the 25-page limit and lacked good cause for exceeding it. Therefore, the Board will dismiss the petition unless a compliant one is refiled within ten days, while simultaneously addressing the attorney's separate fee reconsideration. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances to justify removal and will proceed with reconsideration after compliance with filing rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWCJcumulative traumatemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityapportionmentpenalties
References
2
Case No. ADJ10285745
Regular
Jun 17, 2019

MELINDA SANCHEZ vs. MERITAGE HEALTHCARE, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Melinda Sanchez's Petition for Reconsideration because it was "skeletal." The petition failed to meet the legal requirements of Labor Code § 5902 and Appeals Board Rules 10842, 10846, and 10852, which mandate specific details on grounds for reconsideration and evidence relied upon. Specifically, the petition did not clearly state the grounds for reconsideration or cite the record with specificity. Consequently, the WCAB found the petition subject to dismissal and would have denied it on the merits had it not been procedurally deficient.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionLabor Code Section 5902Appeals Board RulesRule 10842Rule 10846Rule 10852SpecificityRecord ReferencesLegal Principles
References
8
Case No. ADJ10550101
Regular
Apr 08, 2019

MONALISA JIMENEZ vs. CCI TEHACHAPI, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration and removal. The WCAB found the petition for removal was improperly filed as reconsideration was an adequate remedy. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was "skeletal," failing to meet the specificity requirements of Labor Code § 5902 and Appeals Board Rules regarding citation to the record and detailed grounds.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalskeletal petitionAOE/COEfinal ordersubstantive rightthreshold issueLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board Rule 10842
References
10
Case No. ADJ1611171 (SAC 0308205)
Regular
Jan 15, 2020

JOANNE IRVING vs. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by Joanne Irving. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's decision was not a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision is later adverse. Therefore, the Board found no grounds to grant the extraordinary remedy of removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionEvidentiary Decision
References
6
Case No. ADJ10680590, ADJ10680591
Regular
Oct 12, 2017

HYUNMI KIM vs. SHERRY PRECISION DENTAL ART, HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was "skeletal" and failed to meet the specific requirements of Labor Code section 5902 and Appeals Board Rules. The petition did not detail the grounds for reconsideration, cite specific evidence, or fairly state all material evidence relative to the disputed findings. Despite the WCAB acknowledging the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE made the order final, the petition's lack of specificity was sufficient grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for failing to comply with procedural requirements for seeking reconsideration.

ADJ10680590ADJ10680591WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionFinal OrderAOE/COELabor Code 5902Rule 10842Rule 10846
References
8
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. ADJ3907382 (AHM 0133851)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

Mayekal andREW WAGNER vs. WALMART, AVIZENT BENTONVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was not verified as required by law. The applicant's own petition, initially filed as a complaint against the judge, was also denied due to its lack of specificity regarding grounds and supporting evidence. The Board noted the applicant may have intended to file a judicial ethics complaint instead. Therefore, both petitions were ultimately rejected, upholding the original June 12, 2009 Findings, Award, and Orders.

Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationVerified petitionLabor Code section 5902Judicial ethics complaintComplaint About a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJFindings Award and OrdersUnlawful or unjustMaterial evidence
References
3
Case No. ADJ8205468 ADJ8393473
Regular
Sep 16, 2013

SHARO LEYVA vs. KIMCO STAFFING

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration by a lien claimant against Kimco Staffing. The dismissal was primarily based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the statutory 20-day limit plus 5 days for mailing. Additional grounds for dismissal included the petition's lack of verification, improper service, and failure to state valid grounds for reconsideration. Had these defects not existed, the petition would have been denied on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013VerifiedProperly ServedGrounds for ReconsiderationMeritsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 21,125 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