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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Hernandez, an insurance agent, had her license revoked by the Commissioner of Insurance. Her timely motion for rehearing was overruled by operation of law on January 16, 1995, after the Commissioner failed to act within 45 days. Hernandez filed for judicial review on March 3, 1995, after receiving a late notification. The trial court dismissed her petition as untimely. On appeal, Hernandez argued the agency had a duty to notify her of the motion being overruled by operation of law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding the Administrative Procedure Act does not require such notice, thus rendering Hernandez's petition for judicial review untimely.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewTimelinessMotion for RehearingOperation of LawNotice RequirementAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionStatutory InterpretationInsurance Agent
References
10
Case No. ADJ8449286
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, specifically challenging the attorney's fee amount. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address a procedural defect: the applicant's attorney failed to provide proof of notice to the applicant regarding the requested fee increase, as required by WCAB Rule 10778. The Board issued a notice of intention to dismiss the fee request unless the attorney promptly provides this proof of notice. The Board has deferred judgment on other issues raised in the petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorAttorney's FeeElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)WCAB Rule 10778Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NIT)Adverse Interest
References
2
Case No. ADJ7144166
Regular

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, finding it was not a final order. The WCAB granted removal on its own motion to issue a notice of intention to impose sanctions against the lien claimant and its representatives. This action stems from the lien claimant's failure to appear at a properly noticed conference, misrepresentations regarding notice, and violations of procedural rules, constituting bad-faith tactics. Sanctions of $1,000 are proposed jointly and severally against the lien claimant and its representatives for these violations.

Labor Code 5813Rule 10561Petition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissRemovalSanctionsBad Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsLien ClaimantUnnecessary Delay
References
0
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ4440540
Regular
Mar 05, 2014

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimants' Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the dismissal of their liens for failing to appear at a noticed lien conference and for subsequently failing to object to the dismissal notices. The Board also imposed $2,500 in sanctions against the lien claimants' representatives, Qualified Billing and Collections, LLC, and Diego S. Plasencia, for filing a skeletal petition without merit and for their untimely and unsubstantiated objection. This decision reiterates the importance of timely appearance and proper procedural compliance in workers' compensation proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrders Dismissing LiensPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsSanctionsQualified Billing and CollectionsLLCDiego S. PlasenciaLien claimants
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The New York City Department of Homeless Services (DHS) implemented a new Eligibility Procedure for Temporary Housing Assistance (THA) applicants. The Council of the City of New York (City Council) filed a declaratory judgment action, asserting DHS failed to comply with the notice and hearing requirements of the New York City Administrative Procedure Act (CAPA). The court affirmed lower court rulings, determining that DHS's procedure constitutes a 'rule' under CAPA, requiring public notice and hearings. The court rejected DHS's arguments that the procedure involved sufficient discretion or fell under an exemption, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the procedure and its substantial impact on eligibility determinations. Consequently, the Eligibility Procedure is unenforceable until DHS adheres to CAPA's procedural mandates.

Administrative LawRulemakingDeclaratory JudgmentHomeless ServicesTemporary Housing AssistanceNew York City CharterCAPASAPAAgency DiscretionProcedural Requirements
References
14
Case No. ADJ4305848 (VNO 0500451) ADJ1421355 (VNO 0500448) ADJ3686141 (LAO 0853683) ADJ1772068 (LAO 0853682)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely filed and not from a final order. The Board also initiated removal on its own motion to issue a notice of intention to assess sanctions against the lien claimant for failing to appear at trial and filing a procedurally deficient petition. Sanctions are warranted due to the lien claimant's failure to comply with procedural obligations and filing a frivolous petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of IntentionCompromise and ReleaseBoard Rule 10562Untimely Filing
References
10
Case No. ADJ6849643
Regular
May 20, 2013

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order setting the case for trial and closing discovery, as such procedural orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The WCAB granted removal on its own motion, finding the defendant's petition frivolous and indicative of bad faith tactics intended to delay proceedings. Consequently, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction the defendant and its counsel jointly and severally, up to $1,500, for their improper procedural filing. The matter will proceed with trial pending the resolution of the sanctions issue.

RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalSanctionBad FaithFrivolousLabor Code Section 5813Title 8 Section 10561Interlocutory OrderVocational Rehabilitation Expert
References
9
Case No. ADJ7122712, ADJ7122713
Regular
Dec 18, 2013

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release agreement for $25,000, which awarded applicant's attorney a 15% fee instead of the requested 20%. The Board found the attorney's petition for reconsideration to be frivolous and meritless, lacking proper legal justification for an increased fee. Furthermore, the attorney failed to comply with procedural rules, including not providing proof of notice to her client regarding adverse interests and improperly attaching exhibits. Consequently, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions against the attorney for bad faith actions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAttorney's FeeCompromise and Release AgreementAdequacy HearingSanctionLabor Code section 5813Policy and Procedure ManualQuantum MeruitAdverse Interest Notice
References
0
Case No. ADJ1529826 (LBO 0387552)
Regular
2015-00-00

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely, finding it was filed over a year after the deadline. Despite the lien claimant's claims of not receiving notice, the Board found evidence of prior knowledge, including refiling the lien claim and a pattern of alleging lack of notice. The Board also initiated proceedings to assess attorney's fees, costs, and/or sanctions against the lien claimant for filing a frivolous and untimely petition. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and substantiating claims with evidence in workers' compensation proceedings.

References
6
Showing 1-10 of 7,050 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