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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
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. ADJ2380068 (AHM 0102888) ADJ4704159 (AHM 0120563) ADJ2217428 (AHM 0106492)
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

ROSALIE SEE vs. REMAX REAL ESTATE, BENEFICIAL SERVICES; HIGHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY GLENDALE

This case involves applicant Rosalie See's second petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB dismissed the petition because it was a successive filing and the previous petition had already been denied. Additionally, the WCAB found the underlying order compelling medical evaluation was interlocutory, not a final decision, and therefore not subject to reconsideration. Applicant must now pursue a writ of review if they wish to challenge the Board's ruling.

ReconsiderationDismissalPetitionWCJ OrderMedical EvaluationInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightsSuccessive PetitionWrit of Review
References
Case No. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
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
Case No. ADJ999430 (PAS 0009969), ADJ3798683 (LAO 0577997), ADJ1783473 (LAO 0785005)
Regular
Aug 15, 2014

KARIN CHEN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves a second Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant Karin Chen challenging a prior Appeals Board decision. The Board is dismissing this petition because a party cannot file successive petitions for reconsideration after the Board has already ruled on a matter without admitting new evidence. Such an action is procedurally improper and requires a petition for writ of review instead. Therefore, the current Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalConsecutive PetitionSuccessive PetitionPetition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeWrit of ReviewAppeals Board Decision*Crowe Glass Company v. I.A.C.*
References
Case No. ADJ7785733; ADJ7632939
Regular
Mar 12, 2013

JOHN SHEK vs. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER OF OAKLAND, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves a pro se applicant who filed a successive petition for removal and request for an immediate stay after his prior petition was denied. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition, stating that the applicant cannot relitigate issues already decided. The applicant's proper recourse for challenging the WCAB's decision is to file a petition for writ of review with the Court of Appeal. The supplemental petition was also rejected as it was filed without prior permission.

Petition for RemovalDenying ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Supplemental PetitionSuccessive PetitionWrit of ReviewCourt of AppealLabor Code Section 5950Dismissal of PetitionEn Banc Consideration
References
Case No. ADJ716019 (MON 0297841) ADJ2383169 (MON 0297839) ADJ3880076 (MON 0297837)
Regular
Jun 29, 2010

JOSEFINA MARTINEZ vs. HEINZ PET PRODUCTS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, IMPRESS PACKAGING HOLDINGS, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) opinion dismisses a lien claimant's second petition for reconsideration. The WCAB had already denied the claimant's initial petition on April 28, 2010. Filing a successive petition to challenge a prior WCAB decision, after reconsideration was already denied, is procedurally improper. California law dictates that after a WCAB decision, the proper avenue for further appeal is a writ of review, not another petition for reconsideration. Therefore, the Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantDismissedConsecutive petitionSuccessive petitionWrit of reviewWCJ decisionBoard decisionCrowe Glass Company
References
Case No. ADJ4140441 (VEN 0089494) ADJ1623796 (VEN 0099796)
Regular
Jun 25, 2013

SHARON BARNES vs. JOHN MCNEIL, D.D.S., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a second petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Sharon Barnes, challenging a prior Appeals Board decision. The Board dismissed the petition because it was consecutive or successive. California law prohibits filing a second petition for reconsideration after the Appeals Board has issued a final decision on the record. The proper procedure for challenging such a decision is to petition for a writ of review.

Petition for ReconsiderationAppeals BoardWCJ decisionconsecutive petitionsuccessive petitionwrit of reviewen bancCrowe Glass CompanyNavarroCalifornia Workers' Compensation
References
Case No. SAC 0351452
Regular
Nov 20, 2007

TEJINDER K. BATH vs. VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES; HARTFOD CASUALTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its award of $1,237.50 in attorney's fees to the applicant. The defendant argued that Labor Code section 5801 does not authorize fees for responding to a Supreme Court petition for review and that the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's petition precluded the Board from awarding fees. The Board affirmed its decision, finding that services rendered in answering the Supreme Court petition were "in connection with" the initial petition for writ of review, thereby qualifying the applicant's attorney for fees under section 5801.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVoit Information SciencesHartford CasualtyTejinder K. BathOpinion and Order Denying Reconsiderationattorneys feespetition for reviewSupreme Court of CaliforniaLabor Code section 5801jurisdiction
References
Showing 1-10 of 13,961 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