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. 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. ADJ4274323 (ANA 0387677), ADJ1601669 (ANA 0388466)
En Banc
Feb 27, 2014

JOSE DUBON vs. WORLD RESTORATION, INC.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB holds that it has jurisdiction over disputes regarding the procedural validity and timeliness of utilization review (UR) decisions, while Independent Medical Review (IMR) is solely for resolving medical necessity. A UR decision with material procedural defects is invalid, and in such cases, the WCAB, not IMR, will determine the medical necessity of the treatment.

Utilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewEn Banc DecisionWCAB JurisdictionProcedural DefectsMedical NecessityLabor Code Section 4610Substantial Medical EvidenceMaterial Procedural DefectsInvalid UR Decision
References
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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ8770457
Regular
Apr 21, 2015

NICK IVANOFF vs. VIRONEX, BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Nick Ivanoff's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found that a petition for reconsideration can only be filed from a "final" order, decision, or award, which must determine substantive rights or liabilities, or a fundamental threshold issue. The Judge's decision in this case was deemed an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision, not a final one. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as it was improperly filed.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ10204171
Regular
Oct 13, 2016

BEATRIZ AGUILAR vs. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP AND NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD adjusted by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, but rather from an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The WCJ's report, incorporated by reference, provided the basis for both decisions. Therefore, the applicant's requests were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ8651999
Regular
Jul 18, 2014

CARL YARDE (Deceased) vs. EIU OF CALIFORNIA, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, ZURICH INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order dismisses a Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denies removal, adopting the administrative law judge's reasoning that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The petition addressed interlocutory procedural matters, not a final decision. Consequently, the WCAB found the petition procedurally improper and denied removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNon-final OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ7669443 ADJ7739963
Regular
Jun 03, 2015

CARLOS MARTINEZ vs. SA RECYCLING CORPORATION, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, which the Board adopted, articulated the reasoning for these dismissals and denials. Therefore, the applicant's attempt to appeal an interim ruling was unsuccessful on both procedural grounds.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ7087613
Regular
Jul 12, 2013

CLORIA HERNANDEZ vs. GOGLONIAN BAKERIES, ZURICH

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was filed from an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order. Under Labor Code section 5900(a), reconsideration is only permitted for final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities. Since the WCJ's Notice of Intent to Dismiss Lien was not a final dismissal, there was no appealable order, thus warranting dismissal of the petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900(a)Interlocutory DecisionNotice of Intent to DismissProfessional Translation ServicesDismissalSubstantive Right
References
Case No. ADJ7632202, ADJ7632184
Regular
Apr 13, 2015

TAYDE CHAPARRO vs. TALBOTS, INC, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Tayde Chaparro's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found that the petition sought reconsideration of a non-final, interlocutory order, not a final decision that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. Therefore, as the order was not final, the petition was procedurally improper and dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionEvidentiary decisionWCJ decision
References
Showing 1-10 of 9,562 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