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. 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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ10875673
Regular
Mar 18, 2019

JOSEPH PIZARRO vs. TRILLIUM STAFFING SOLUTIONS, XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE c/o CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The deadline to file was December 11, 2018, but the petition was not filed until January 17, 2019. The Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to consider petitions filed outside the statutorily mandated time limits. The applicant remained represented by counsel of record throughout the process.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeFindings and OrderService by MailFiling RequirementsLegal Timeliness
References
Case No. ADJ547198 (LAO 0841624)
Regular
May 13, 2019

CHARLOTTE KENNEY PICKARD vs. LOS ROBLES REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Charlotte Kenney Pickard's petition for reconsideration because it was filed two days late. California law grants 25 days to file such a petition after service by mail, extended to the next business day if the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday. The WCAB noted that filing means *receipt* by the board, not just mailing, and that untimely petitions are jurisdictional and cannot be considered. The petition was received on March 13, 2019, making it untimely.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor CodeAdministrative Law JudgeJurisdictional Time LimitProof of FilingFindings and OrderWCJ Report
References
Case No. ADJ12634746
Regular
Nov 07, 2025

BLANCA ARRIOLA vs. OAK VALLEY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, BETA HEALTHCARE GROUP

The applicant, Blanca Arriola, filed a pro per Petition for Reconsideration on August 25, 2025, challenging a decision from June 20, 2025, despite being represented by counsel. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the petition to be untimely, as it exceeded the 25-day statutory limit for filing. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction. The decision also clarified recent amendments to Labor Code section 5909 concerning the Appeals Board's 60-day action period and notification requirements for case transmission.

Petition for ReconsiderationPro Per FilingUntimely PetitionLabor Code § 5909Appeals BoardTransmission of CaseElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Case EventsProof of ServiceReport
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. ADJ6621190 (MF)
Regular
Jan 18, 2019

DEANNA CARROLL vs. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Deanna Carroll was previously declared a vexatious litigant in 2016, requiring pre-approval to file any requests with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). In this decision, the WCAB reviewed a Petition for Removal for Cause filed by Carroll in propria persona on December 4, 2018. Finding no significant change in circumstances or newly discovered evidence since the prior determination, the WCAB declined to accept the petition for filing. Therefore, Carroll's petition was rejected as per the vexatious litigant pre-filing order.

Vexatious litigantpre-filing orderAppeals Board Rule 10782Petition for Removal for Causein pro pernew evidencechange in lawpresiding judgelicensed attorneydeclaration of readiness
References
Case No. ADJ1122093 (SAC 0279029) ADJ988134 (SAC 0267349)
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

BOBBIE SANDERS vs. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Bobbie Sanders, previously declared a vexatious litigant under Rule 10782, filed a Petition for Removal without court approval. Rule 10782 requires pre-filing authorization for pro se litigants, with exceptions for licensed attorneys. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because there was no significant change in circumstances or new evidence to warrant re-litigation of previously determined issues. Therefore, the document was not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantpre-filing orderAppeals Board Rule 10782Petition for Removalin pro perworkers' compensationEmployment Development DepartmentState Compensation Insurance FundADJ1122093ADJ988134
References
Case No. ADJ1959622 (AHM 0143618) ADJ3555484 (AHM 0143619)
Regular
Feb 14, 2011

KAI-SEN TSAI vs. SUN SALES LA, INC., UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND, Rosa Lam

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Rosa Lam's petition for reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release because it was filed untimely. Lam, acting "in pro per" despite being represented by counsel, alleged fraud, non-industrial causes, witness credibility issues, and ineffective assistance of her attorney who allegedly coerced her into signing the settlement. The Board found the petition was filed 29 days after the order, exceeding the 20-day jurisdictional deadline. Even if timely, the Board would have denied it, as ineffective assistance of counsel is not grounds to set aside an order and no undue influence was demonstrated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSun Sales LAInc.Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundRosa LamPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseIn Pro PerFraudulent ClaimsNon-Industrial Causes
References
Case No. ADJ10110995
Regular
Oct 14, 2020

PRESTON LEE BROWN SCOTT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, THE HARTFORD

The applicant, Preston Lee Brown Scott, was declared a vexatious litigant in 2018 and is subject to a pre-filing order. This order requires him to obtain prior approval from a judge before filing any documents with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). He has filed multiple petitions for reconsideration without this approval. The WCAB has reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances to warrant acceptance. Therefore, the documents submitted by Mr. Scott are not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRule 10430Rule 10782In pro perPetition for ReconsiderationAdjudication of claimDeclaration of readinessPleading
References
Case No. ADJ10110995 (MF)
Regular
Jun 20, 2019

Preston Lee Brown Scott vs. City of Los Angeles

Applicant Preston Lee Brown Scott, previously declared a vexatious litigant, filed multiple documents seeking relief without obtaining the required pre-filing approval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of prior rulings. Consequently, the Board issued an order stating that the submitted documents are not accepted for filing. This order reaffirms the pre-filing requirements for vexatious litigants absent representation by a licensed attorney.

Vexatious LitigantPre-Filing OrderAppeals Board Rule 10782In Pro PerApplication for AdjudicationDeclaration of ReadinessPleadingsPetitionLicensed AttorneyChange in Circumstances
References
Showing 1-10 of 4,404 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