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. ADJ7908284
Regular
Apr 21, 2016

MARIA MURILLO vs. FEDEX SMART POST, PROTECTIVE INSURANCE

This case involves Maria Murillo's workers' compensation claim against FedEx Smart Post. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Murillo's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision. The WCAB emphasized that timely *receipt* by the Board, not just mailing, is required to meet jurisdictional filing deadlines. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDISMISSEDUNTimelyLABOR CODECALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONSJURISDICTIONALWCJ DECISIONSERVICE BY MAILPROOF OF MAILING
References
4
Case No. DC-13-04564-L
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

in Re: Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc. and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault and related damages, including mental anguish. Her designated psychologist, Dr. William Flynn, conducted a mental examination. Defendants Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Post Properties, Inc., and Post Addison Circle Limited Partnership sought an independent psychological examination of the plaintiff by their expert, Dr. Lisa Clayton. The district court initially denied this motion, and subsequently denied the defendants' joint motion for reconsideration. This mandamus record documents the appellate review of this discovery dispute.

Sexual AssaultMental AnguishPsychological ExaminationDiscovery DisputeForensic PsychologyPremises LiabilityMandamus PetitionCivil ProcedureExpert WitnessTexas Law
References
59
Case No. ADJ2969875
Regular
Nov 16, 2012

ROBERTA FRANCINE YOUNG vs. COUNTY OF MONTEREY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's denial of her petition for commutation. The WCJ found that commuting benefits to allow the applicant to purchase a home would result in a net monthly loss of income, based on projected expenses exceeding her reduced income. Applicant argued the WCJ failed to consider future income increases and the stabilization benefits of homeownership. The Board agreed with the WCJ's findings and suggested a new petition could be filed in the future, addressing cognitive disability and financial assistance resources.

Petition for CommutationFindings and OrderWCJ ReportMonthly ExpensesRent PaymentsStorage UnitPG&EHomeowners InsuranceProperty TaxesWorkers' Compensation Payments
References
0
Case No. ADJ1117931 (LAO 0743685) ADJ1499748 (LAO 0743689) ADJ4716197 (LAO 0743687)
Regular
May 26, 2010

CARMEN LICEA vs. ZACKY FARMS; Administered By BUCKEYE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying the admission of additional evidence and witnesses was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final determination of substantive rights. The WCAB denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no showing of prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the applicant's petition to disqualify the WCJ, noting the lack of a required affidavit and finding no evidence of bias or enmity. Ultimately, all of the applicant's post-order filings were denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCarmen LiceaZacky FarmsBuckeye Claims AdministratorsPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJDr. Procciwork function impairment form
References
8
Case No. 23-0273, 23-0950
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2025

Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners' Trust v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurs in the denial of two petitions for review, acknowledging their significant statutory-interpretation questions and implications for the role of administrative agencies versus courts. The first petition (No. 23-0273) was a facial challenge by Accident Fund Insurance Company and Texas Cotton Ginners’ Trust against the Texas Department of Insurance regarding a rule on supplemental income benefits. The court found this challenge unsuitable as it presented no concrete example of the rule directly contravening the statute. The second petition (No. 23-0950) by Accident Fund General Insurance Company challenged lifetime income benefits awarded to Rodrigo Mendiola for severe burn injuries and loss of hand function. Accident Fund argued the lower courts used an outdated judicial standard instead of current statutory law. However, the court denied review because Mendiola's injuries qualified for benefits under both standards, rendering the choice between them non-outcome-determinative. Justice Young emphasized that this denial does not reflect a settled view on these issues, which may warrant review in future, more suitable cases with clearer records.

Workers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewPetition for ReviewSupplemental Income BenefitsLifetime Income BenefitsFacial ChallengeWorkers' Compensation ProgramSupreme Court of Texas
References
12
Case No. ADJ1951702 (VNO 0439183) ADJ2261665 (VNO 0439166)
Regular
Sep 13, 2013

DAVID OROZCO vs. REINFORCING POST TENSION, ZURICH

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by David Orozco. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the accompanying Report and Recommendation. Ultimately, the Board found the petition to be moot. Consequently, the Board has issued an order dismissing the Petition for Reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationmootdismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJadministrative law judgeReinforcing Post TensionZurichADJ1951702ADJ2261665
References
0
Case No. ADJ6906053
Regular
May 11, 2016

JILL PENNINGTON vs. HOME FRONT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it challenged a non-final procedural order requiring further development of the record on orthopedic issues. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that requires a higher burden of proof than reconsideration. Therefore, both of the applicant's post-decision challenges were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings of Fact and OrderInjury to body partsFurther development of recordNon-final orderSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutory procedural decisions
References
6
Case No. ADJ4125031
Regular
Nov 02, 2015

JUDY WRIGHT vs. WASHINGTON MUTUAL, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, holding that interlocutory procedural orders, like the order vacating submission, are not final decisions subject to reconsideration. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ's order to have the Agreed Medical Examiner comment on post-surgery status remains in effect. The matter will return to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionAgreed Medical ExaminerPermanent ImpairmentSpinal Fusion Surgery1997 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disability2005 ScheduleDue Process
References
9
Case No. ADJ6780439
Regular
Nov 13, 2018

CHARLES GRANDELL vs. SEARES VALLEY MINERALS, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, IMC CHEMICAL, INC., CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE COMPANY, RELIANCE NATIONAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration and dismissed their petition for removal. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings that the applicant sustained a continuous trauma injury to his spine, ears, eyes, and psyche arising out of and in the course of employment. The Board found that the defendant's arguments regarding the post-termination defense and reliance on a specific PQME were without merit. Finally, the Board determined that removal was inappropriate as reconsideration was the correct procedural remedy for the issues raised.

continuous traumapost-termination defensePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEMcDuffie OrderPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings of Factarising out of or in the course of employmentAOE/COE
References
7
Case No. ADJ7050108
Regular
Aug 13, 2010

ELIZABETH MEDINA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petitions for reconsideration and removal. The WCJ had found the defendant failed to timely conduct utilization review for the applicant's knee surgery. Although the defendant authorized the surgery post-decision and claimed prejudice regarding sanctions, the Board found no aggrievement as a lack of timely review doesn't equate to bad faith for sanctions. Since the core issue of surgery authorization was resolved and no significant prejudice was shown, both petitions were denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings of OrderRegistered NurseKnee InjurySanctions ProceedingsLabor Code § 5813Aggrieved
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 16,818 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