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. ADJ4245398 (GOL 0101151)
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

HEIDI KIRKWOOD vs. VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as the WCJ's order was procedural and not a final determination. The Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order to reopen discovery, and returned the case for a decision based on the existing record. This action was taken because the discovery closure date had passed, no party requested further development of the record, and reopening would cause undue delay. The Board admonished the defendant for improperly titling their petition as one for reconsideration.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ OrderVacated SubmissionPsychiatric PQMEReevaluationDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
10
Case No. ADJ5776124
Regular
May 12, 2011

LESLEY KESSER vs. SANTA ROSA SCHOOL DISTRICT, REDWOOD EMPIRE SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's minute orders concerning discovery closure were not final orders. Treating the petition as a Petition for Removal, the WCAB denied it, finding the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's attempt to reopen discovery and depose a PQME was thus unsuccessful. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision on discovery limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinute OrdersDeclaration of ReadinessClosure of DiscoveryPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerPQMELabor CodeDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. ADJ4379045 (ANA 0389616)
Regular
Mar 19, 2012

FEDERICO MARTINEZ vs. ROBERTSON'S READY MIX, INC.

Defendant Robertson's Ready Mix sought to reopen a stipulated award of 81% permanent disability for Federico Martinez based on a change in law regarding life pension calculations. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed significantly beyond the statutory 20-day limit. However, the WCAB returned the petition to the trial level to be considered solely as a petition to reopen based on the alleged change in law. This decision allows the parties to address the legal change at the trial judge level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to ReopenPetition for ReconsiderationStipulated Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityLife PensionLabor Code Section 4659(c)Baker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Untimely Filing
References
5
Case No. ADJ3362610 (AHM 0122924)
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

JOSE COLLASO, JOSE COLLAZO vs. PACIFIC FRESH FOOD CO., PREMIER STAFFING SOLUTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed 146 days after the original dismissal order, far exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline. The Board noted that untimely petitions cannot be excused by mistake or excusable neglect, even if the applicant experienced homelessness. However, the WCAB will remand the case to the WCJ to treat the petition as a request to reopen the dismissal for good cause and schedule a hearing on that specific issue.

Petition for reconsiderationDismissal for lack of prosecutionPetition to reopenGood causeJurisdictional time limitsFinal orderUntimely petitionContinuing jurisdictionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judge
References
16
Case No. ADJ2510198
Regular
Jul 28, 2011

ANGEL RIVERA vs. FREMONT FENCE, ENDURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant, Fremont Fence and Endurance Insurance Company, filed an untimely petition for removal seeking to reopen discovery. The petition was filed one day after the deadline, which was June 8, 2011, because the order closing discovery was personally served on the defendant's counsel. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition due to its untimeliness.

Petition for RemovalUntimely PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAgreed Medical EvaluatorCross-examinationSupplemental ReportClose of DiscoveryMandatory Settlement ConferencePersonal ServiceCode of Civil Procedure 1013
References
2
Case No. ADJ3589881 (SBR0186633) ADJ2907298 (SBR0185776)
Regular
Mar 14, 2017

THEODORE MOULAS vs. SDA TRANSPORTATION, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

The defendant sought removal, challenging the WCJ's order to reopen discovery after trial had begun. The Appeals Board initially dismissed the removal petition as moot, believing the discovery dispute was resolved. However, the defendant asserted the dispute remained unresolved, prompting the Board to grant a new petition for removal. The Board rescinded its prior dismissal, denied the original removal petition without prejudice, and ordered the WCJ to hold an expeditious status conference to clarify the case's status and facilitate resolution.

Petition for RemovalDiscovery DisputeMandatory Settlement ConferenceReopening DiscoveryGood CauseIrreparable HarmMoot PetitionRescind OrderStatus ConferenceExpiditious Resolution
References
2
Case No. VNO 0462079
Regular
Jul 11, 2007

JONAS MORENO vs. FILTERCOR, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's untimely petition for reconsideration of an approved compromise and release settlement. Despite the untimeliness, the WCAB remanded the matter to the administrative law judge to treat the petition as a request to reopen the case. This allows for further proceedings on the merits of the lien claimant's claim.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenUntimely FilingService by MailDefective ServiceLabor Code Sections 5803Labor Code Sections 5804Compromise and ReleaseLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
1
Case No. ADJ9625941
Regular
Oct 15, 2015

DANIEL BORGSTROM vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHANNEL ISLANDS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration, as they were taken from non-final interlocutory orders concerning a discovery dispute over deposing the Chief of Police. The applicant's petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the WCJ rescinded the order denying the deposition, thereby allowing it. Finally, the defendant's petition for removal was denied, as they failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and liberal discovery for the fair resolution of cases was favored.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder RescindingDepositionChief of PoliceDiscovery DisputeNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
10
Case No. ADJ7580924 (MF), ADJ4184729 (SJO 0177821), ADJ1127103 (SJO 0179965), ADJ605452 (SJO 0166061)
Regular
Nov 21, 2011

IBRAHIM HAMAMJY vs. ENTEGRIS, INC.; SENTRY INSURANCE, ATCOR CALIFORNIA, INC.; GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration and denied Petitions for Removal filed by Entegris/Sentry Insurance and Atcor/Golden Eagle Insurance. The Board found that the August 29, 2011 Order consolidating three cases and taking them off calendar for further discovery was interlocutory, not a final order. Therefore, the reconsideration petition was improper. Removal petitions were denied as the Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no error in the consolidation and discovery order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEntegrisInc.Sentry InsuranceGolden Eagle Insurance CompanyPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJconsolidationinterlocutory order
References
1
Case No. ADJ9585531
Regular
Aug 28, 2017

Andres Reyes vs. PT WELDING INC.; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Applicant Andres Reyes's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory discovery order. The WCAB also denied Applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and directed the parties to resolve the discovery dispute through the Administrative Director. The original order denied Applicant's motion to quash a subpoena for his entire school records from iLearn Institute, which Applicant argued was irrelevant and invaded his privacy. Applicant's petition was dismissed as reconsideration is improper for non-final orders, and his removal petition was denied as he failed to demonstrate significant prejudice.

WACABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery OrderMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumPrivacySignificant Prejudice
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15,045 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