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. ADJ892953 (LAO 0863530) ADJ4178497 (POM 0234792)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

FELICIDAD MCINTOSH vs. GOLDEN STATE FOODS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order vacating the Order of Submission. The WCAB also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ vacated the submission to allow for the development of the record regarding apportionment, which was inadequately addressed in the agreed medical examiner reports. The WCAB clarified that reconsideration is only available for final orders, and removal is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases demonstrating substantial prejudice or irreparable injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating Order of SubmissionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)CausationApportionmentBurden of ProofFinal OrderSubstantive Rights
References
5
Case No. ADJ9398564
Regular
Jun 12, 2018

JEROME POLAND vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The applicant, Jerome Poland, filed a Petition for Reconsideration without his attorney in response to a notice of intention to disallow his claim. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) subsequently issued an "Order Vacating Submission" in response to this petition. Citing WCAB Rule 10859, which allows a WCJ to amend or rescind a decision within fifteen days of a reconsideration petition, the Board dismissed the applicant's petition. This dismissal was based on the WCJ's action in vacating submission within the allowable timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DisallowWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOrder Vacating SubmissionWCAB Rule 10859Amend or ModifyRescindFurther ProceedingsDismissed Petition
References
1
Case No. POM 0264727POM 0267166
Regular
Aug 19, 2008

CELIA MUNOZ vs. THE TOWN CLUB, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY/GAB ROBINS

Here's a summary of the provided case excerpts: In *Fiducia*, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found applicant sustained industrial injuries but had failed to attend medical exams and hearings, leading to dismissal for good cause. The Board vacated the prior dismissal and remanded for further development of the record, acknowledging that the applicant's failure to attend examinations and hearings warranted dismissal. However, due to lack of current medical evidence, the Board vacated the dismissal and returned the case to the trial level to allow applicant to attend examinations and hearings. In *Munoz*, the defendant sought reconsideration of an order vacating submission and returning the case to the trial calendar to further develop the evidentiary record concerning a lien claimant's charges. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it was not from a final order and denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of irreparable harm or significant prejudice. The Board emphasized that interlocutory orders to further develop evidence are not subject to reconsideration.

WCABindustrial injurypsycheTMJnasal traumateethblood pressuredismissalgood causetemporary disability
References
12
Case No. ADJ8040191
Regular
Sep 18, 2013

JOEL GOODEN vs. HILLS PET NUTRITION, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant petitioned for removal, seeking to overturn an order vacating submission of the case for further medical record development. The administrative law judge (WCJ) had vacated submission to review PQME reports from Dr. Georgis and Dr. Francisco. The WCJ subsequently took the matter off calendar to allow parties to obtain a supplemental report from the PQME reviewing Dr. Francisco's report. As the issue raised by the defendant's petition is now moot due to the subsequent order, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalVacating SubmissionPQMESupplemental ReportWCJOff CalendarMootAppeals BoardWorkers' CompensationCase Development
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. ADJ2501619 (OAK 0286955)
Regular
Nov 10, 2008

JAMES BRADFORD vs. MCMILLAN BROS. ELECTRIC, INC., PACIFIC EAGLE INSURANCE CO./tpa SEABRIGHT INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petitions for reconsideration, removal, and stay of execution. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed with the Appeals Board more than 25 days after the arbitrator's decision. The Board also lacked jurisdiction to grant the petition for removal or stay of execution, as these actions are not permitted for an arbitrator's decision in a Labor Code section 3201.5 carve-out case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for Stay of ExecutionUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 3201.5Carve-out CaseArbitrator's DecisionJurisdictionAppeals Board Rule 10865
References
4
Case No. ADJ9496892
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

JUNE JONES vs. CALIFORNIA SPECIAL PATROL, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Applicant's attorney sought reconsideration of an Order Rescinding Submission, Order Vacating Finding and Order, and Order to Develop the Record dated June 27, 2025, arguing further record development was unnecessary. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition and denial if treated as a petition for removal. The Appeals Board timely acted on the petition but noted issues with notice of transmission to the parties. They dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the underlying order non-final, and denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Rescinding SubmissionFindings and OrderLabor Code section 5909Transmission of CaseElectronic Adjudication Management SystemNotice of TransmissionFinal Order
References
8
Case No. ADJ4192390 (SFO 0498367)
Regular
May 28, 2010

BRUCE MITCHELL vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought to overturn an order that vacated submission, arguing it violated due process and wrongly linked the applicant's 132a discrimination claim to diminished future earning capacity. The WCAB found the vacated order was not final and that the 132a claim was indeed relevant and inextricably related to the earning capacity issue. Therefore, the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision to further develop the record, finding no substantial prejudice to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Setting Aside DispositionLabor Code section 132adiminished future earnings capacityOgilvie v. City and County of San FranciscoMandatory Settlement Conferencestipulationdeferral
References
1
Case No. ADJ9202952
Regular
Nov 05, 2018

MARIA LOPEZ vs. KELLERMEYER BERGENSON SERVICES, LLC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The WCAB dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of an Order Vacating, finding the order was not a final decision. However, it granted the defendant's Petition for Removal of that same Order Vacating, deeming it untimely under WCAB Rule 10859. Consequently, the WCAB vacated the Order Vacating, restoring the original July 5, 2018 Findings of Fact. The WCAB also dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Removal, affirming the July 5, 2018 Findings of Fact which held the lien claimant bound by prior causation findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder VacatingFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeLien ClaimantSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmFinal Order
References
0
Case No. MON 0212034
Regular
Mar 14, 2008

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's petition, deeming it an improper reconsideration of a non-final order. The WCAB construed the applicant's request as a petition for removal, which it denied, upholding the WCJ's discretion to prohibit videotaping of proceedings. The decision emphasizes that a party's right to videotape hearings is within the WCJ's sound discretion and not a guaranteed right.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalRequest for Judicial NoticeVideotape ProceedingsWCJ DiscretionFinal OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmVacating Order
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15,007 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