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. ADJ997412 (LAO 0813526)
Regular
Oct 25, 2010

PATRICIA ANN HAYES vs. ALBERTSONS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case concerns the applicant's petition for reconsideration and removal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB dismissed the reconsideration petition, finding the prior order was not final. However, they granted the removal petition, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The WCAB found the trial judge's decision to order additional medical evaluations was premature without establishing a deficiency in the existing medical record. Finally, the applicant's petition to disqualify the trial judge was denied, as the judge's actions were not deemed to reflect a prejudgment of the case's merits.

AOE/COEfibromyalgiapsychiatric injuryorthopedic injuryAgreed Medical Examinerpetition for reconsiderationpetition for disqualificationpetition for removalFindings and Ordersdiscovery order
References
7
Case No. ADJ11323347
Regular
Apr 15, 2019

PARVIZ AREFIAN vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., OLD REPUBLIC as administered by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Uber's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying their petition to dismiss was not a final order. The WCAB also denied Uber's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board held that due process requires a hearing on the merits of the dismissal petition, not premature appellate review. Therefore, the dismissal petition must be litigated at the trial level.

Res JudicataPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionThreshold IssueSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmDue ProcessFair Hearing
References
0
Case No. ADJ7038469
Regular
Sep 17, 2014

AZIZA SAYED vs. GIORGIO ARMANI, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant's petition to appeal an Administrative Director's Independent Bill Review (IBR) determination was dismissed. The Board found the petition premature as it was not first heard by a trial level Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). Additionally, the petition failed to comply with numerous procedural requirements, including proper captioning, verification, service, and stating specific grounds for appeal. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition appealing the IBR determination were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Bill ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative DirectorLabor Code section 4603.6MAXIMUS Federal ServicesInc.Lien claimantOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleWCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure
References
0
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034) ADJ1776170 (MON 0224335)
Regular
Feb 10, 2016

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT FOOD SERVICES, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration and removal that was dismissed and denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board found that the WCJ's decision addressed only an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary issue, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as premature. The petition for removal was also denied, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
6
Case No. ADJ16905183
Regular
Apr 03, 2025

KIMBERLY ARREOLA CORTES vs. OC DIRECT DELIVERY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Kimberly Arreola Cortes, a delivery associate, claimed a work-related injury but repeatedly failed to attend scheduled medical evaluations with QME Dr. Ryan Culver due to personal reasons and relocation. Following a petition by the defendant, OC Direct Delivery, for dismissal due to inactivity, the WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Case. Applicant filed a premature Petition for Reconsideration, incorrectly believing the NIT was a final order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration, finding both applicant's petition and defendant's prior petition for dismissal premature due to errors in applying notice periods for out-of-state service, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissQualified Medical EvaluatorAOE/COEOut-of-State RelocationWCAB Rule 10550Inactive Case DismissalPetition for DismissalPremature Filing
References
3
Case No. ADJ2624099 (AHM 0134865)
Regular
Nov 06, 2013

JACALYN HALE (Deceased) vs. MESA MEDICAL GROUP, ACE USA c/o ESIS, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed ECIC's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order regarding contribution proceedings was not a final determination of substantive rights. The Board also denied ECIC's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's statement that the contribution issue might eventually be subject to mandatory arbitration. The WCJ had merely overruled ECIC's objection to ACE/ESIS's contribution petition and allowed discovery, not ordered arbitration itself. Therefore, any arguments about mandatory arbitration were premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ OrderContribution ProceedingsMandatory ArbitrationLabor Code Section 5500.5ACE/ESISECICIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ11039762
Regular
Aug 06, 2018

ALFRED GUILING vs. GODEFELLOW BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed their Petition for Removal. The defendant argued the judge's finding of injury to specific body parts was premature and lacked substantial evidence, as the PQME process was incomplete. The Board found removal was inappropriate, as the injury finding is a final order subject to reconsideration. They adopted the WCJ's report, concluding the applicant met their burden of proof for industrial injury to the disputed body parts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings of Factindustrial injurybody partssubstantial evidencePanel Qualified Medical EvaluationPQMEextraordinary remedy
References
2
Case No. ADJ8937162
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

REGINALD HARRIS vs. LETICIA CORPORATION, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the underlying order vacating submission was interlocutory and not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding that the defendants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration would not adequately address later. The WCJ's decision to seek clarification of medical reports before determining admissibility was deemed procedurally sound. Therefore, the defendants' challenges to the admissibility of evidence and request for resubmission were premature.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionAdmissibility of Medical ReportsPanel QMETreating PhysicianPermanent and Stationary ReportApportionmentLabor Code Section 5502(d)(3)
References
7
Case No. VNO 380163
Regular
Mar 26, 2008

Lawrence Reichelt vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as premature, successive, and untimely, as it related to issues already addressed in prior final orders. The WCAB also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, adopting the WCALJ's report recommending denial. The case was then returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJmileage reimbursementtravel expensesDr. Dicksteinfinal ordersprematuresuccessive
References
1
Case No. SJO 253163
Regular
Jul 07, 2008

REHAN SHIEKH vs. CISCO SYSTEM, INC., CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES

The applicant's petitions for reconsideration and removal were dismissed because the Workers' Compensation Judge had not yet issued a final order or decision on the applicant's discovery and attorney fee petitions. As no aggrieved party has suffered prejudice or irreparable harm from a non-existent ruling, reconsideration and removal are statutorily improper at this procedural stage. The Appeals Board noted that the applicant's premature filings have further delayed the resolution of the pending issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJLabor Code § 132aindustrial injurysoftware engineerright anklepsychediscrimination
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 14,296 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