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. ADJ6913723
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

ZACHARY GRAM vs. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order changing venue was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board then granted removal on its own motion to clarify the record and resolve conflicting procedural orders regarding the venue change. Specifically, the Board vacated prior orders, including an order granting a venue change and a subsequent order rescinding it. The matter is returned to the trial level for a determination on the defendant's request for a venue change.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationVenueLabor Code Section 5310Interlocutory OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmRescind
References
7
Case No. ADJ2427648
Regular
Jul 13, 2009

MARIA ROWENA MABINI vs. HOLLYWOOD PARK CASINO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order, which took the matter off calendar to pursue AME and QME procedures, was procedural and not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding that they failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant argued that the WCJ erred by ordering AME/QME procedures when treatment was managed under a healthcare organization contract. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, agreeing that the procedural order did not qualify for reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff CalendarAMEQMEHealth Care OrganizationLabor Code 4600.3Interlocutory OrderFinal Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ7552724, ADJ7584841
Regular
Sep 17, 2013

AGUSTIN NAVARRO vs. ALLIED WASTE OF SACRAMENTO, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of a prior order that itself granted reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because reconsideration can only be sought from a final order, decision, or award, not from interlocutory procedural orders. An order granting reconsideration without resolving the underlying issues is not considered final. Therefore, the petition challenging the order granting reconsideration was dismissed as procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLab. Code§ 5900Granting ReconsiderationDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ7552724ADJ7584841
References
0
Case No. ADJ9139200
Regular
Dec 11, 2015

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Matthew Bakes' petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be based on "final" orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions. The WCJ's decision at issue here only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter. Thus, it was not a final order, and the petition was procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsRemoval
References
5
Case No. ADJ6849643
Regular
May 20, 2013

CHARLES MALINOWSKI vs. HSM ELECTRONIC PROTECTION SERVICES, INC., SPECIALTY RISK

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. SAU10030321
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

BRIAN DUARTE vs. ALL ABOUT PAINT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Brian Duarte's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, decision, or award. A final order must determine a substantive right or liability, or a fundamental threshold issue, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary matters. The WCJ's order consolidating cases, designating a master file, staying liens, and noticing a hearing was deemed an interlocutory procedural order and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionOrder of ConsolidationDesignation of Master File
References
4
Case No. ADJ422285
Regular
Jun 01, 2010

KATHLEEN JONES vs. PALMDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT; TIG administered by RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT

The defendant sought removal of an order requiring reimbursement for deposition costs, arguing procedural error and that a less costly method was available. The Appeals Board denied removal, deeming the order a final decision on costs subject to reconsideration. The Board granted reconsideration on its own motion due to the order's non-compliance with procedural rules for "walk-through" orders. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for removalOrder for costsDeposition costsSupplemental reportDue processGood cause objectionReconsideration on Board motionFinal orderSubstantive rightLiability
References
5
Case No. ADJ9859125
Regular
Aug 04, 2017

CHRISTOPHER E. RENFRO vs. YOUNGS COMMERCIAL TRANSFER, NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE

The Board dismissed the applicant's untimely Petition for Reconsideration of an order compelling blood testing. Removal was granted on the Board's own motion to address procedural issues concerning the WCJ's subsequent vacating orders. The Board affirmed the vacating orders, finding the original order non-final and the subsequent actions invalid due to procedural errors. The matter is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationGrant RemovalOrder VacatingBlood Panel TestingIndependent Medical EvaluatorPro PerTimelinessJurisdictionalFinal Order
References
13
Case No. ADJ2912733 (VNO 0470821)
Regular
Dec 02, 2013

PAMELA WARD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pamela Ward's petition for reconsideration. This dismissal was not based on the merits of her petition, but rather on the procedural issue that a petition for reconsideration can only be filed after a final order. The WCAB's prior order granting reconsideration was found not to be a final order under Labor Code § 5900. Therefore, Ward's petition was procedurally defective and consequently dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor Code § 5900Gumilla v. Industrial Acc. Com.Safeway Stores v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Dufault v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Ortiz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.City of Los Angeles v. Industrial Acc. Com.Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
5
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592) ADJ1224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Feb 17, 2009

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA. COM and SYSMASTER CORPORATION, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order being challenged was procedural and not a final appealable order. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The applicant's arguments regarding rescinded orders, discovery abuse, and due process were unaddressed as the procedural nature of the order precluded review. The Board cautioned the applicant against filing frivolous petitions, warning of potential sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalInterlocutory OrderProcedural OrderFinal OrderLabor Code section 5900Substantive RightsDiscovery IssuesAbuse of Discovery
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 24,591 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