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. ADJ2648520
Regular
Mar 17, 2011

REYLENE ROSAS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed 61 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision, exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline. The Board found proof of timely service by mail on the lien claimant's official address of record. Even if service were defective, the petition would still be untimely as it was filed 26 days after the claimant acknowledged receiving the decision, exceeding the 20-day period for filing after actual receipt in such cases. The Board would have also denied the petition on its merits had it not been dismissed for untimeliness.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalFindings and OrderWCJService by MailJurisdictional Time LimitsOfficial Address RecordDeclaration of Mailing
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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ13057590; ADJ13058223
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

HEATHER RAMOS vs. PIH HEALTH, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

Applicant Heather Ramos sought reconsideration of a WCJ's Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) which found defendant PIH Health and Athens Administrators had provided proof of service for a supplemental job displacement voucher (SJDV). The WCJ applied the presumption of timely mailing and receipt, finding applicant failed to rebut it and was not entitled to a penalty. Applicant contended there was no valid proof of service, and defendant did not meet the burden to invoke the presumption, thus entitling her to a penalty and attorney's fees. The Appeals Board upheld the WCJ's decision, concluding that the defendant's proof of service was valid, and applicant's evidence was insufficient to overcome the mailing presumption, therefore denying reconsideration.

Supplemental Job Displacement VoucherPresumption of ReceiptMailbox RuleProof of ServiceRebuttal EvidenceWCABPetition for ReconsiderationPenaltiesAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814
References
Case No. ADJ7041310
Regular
Mar 03, 2014

ARCADIO TORRES vs. UNIVERSAL METAL PLATING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The WCAB found that the defendant's claim of late receipt of the Findings and Award was insufficient to overcome official records establishing timely service. The Board applied presumptions of regular performance of duty and ordinary course of mail, supported by case law, that service is complete upon mailing. Therefore, the petition was dismissed based on its untimeliness.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelyFindings and AwardProof of ServicePresumption of ReceiptOfficial RecordsWCABEvid. Code § 664Evid. Code § 641
References
Case No. ADJ9368601
Regular
Mar 07, 2016

JOSE GERARDO CASTRO vs. PARAMOUNT LIMOUSINE

In *Castro v. Paramount Limousine*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on February 9, 2016, which was more than the jurisdictional 25-day deadline after the WCJ's January 13, 2016 decision. The WCAB emphasized that filing requires actual receipt by the Board within the statutory period, not just mailing. As a result, the Board lacked authority to consider the merits of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ decisionLab. CodeCal. Code Regs.Jurisdictional Time LimitAppeals Board AuthorityProof of MailingProof of Receipt
References
Case No. ADJ8452616
Regular
Sep 11, 2012

GUILLERMO SANDOVAL DE LA CRUZ vs. DMS FACILITY SERVICES, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by a lien claimant, Tri-County Medical Group, challenging an arbitrator's disallowance of its liens. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was not timely filed with the Board and was instead mailed to the arbitrator. Furthermore, the Board noted the petition lacked proper verification and the proof of service was defective. Even if timely, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits due to insufficient evidence presented by the lien claimant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationDisallowed LiensMedical Provider Network (MPN)Arbitrator's FindingsTimely FilingJurisdictionRule 10865Proof of Service
References
Case No. ADJ6622890
Regular
Mar 10, 2014

GIOVANNA MUNOZ vs. MARY ADAMS COLLINS, ALLSTATE, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Western Imaging's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The Board found that Western Imaging's claim of non-receipt of the Order Dismissing Lien Claim was insufficient to overcome the presumption of service created by the defendant's proof of service and the ordinary course of mail. Even if Western Imaging's declaration were considered, the Board found credible evidence that they did, in fact, receive the order. Due to the untimeliness, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceRebuttable PresumptionOrdinary Course of MailUntimelyJurisdictionLien ClaimWCABAdministrative Law JudgeWestern Imaging
References
Case No. ADJ7977342, ADJ7977782
Regular
Oct 17, 2013

LORENZO FLORES HERNANADEZ vs. T.T. MIYASAKA, WAUSAU BEAVERTON

This case involves two lien claimants, Prestin Chiropractic and United Document Imaging, whose liens were dismissed for failing to pay the lien activation fee and appearing at a conference. Both claimants petitioned for reconsideration, alleging they did not receive notice of the conference or dismissal order. However, the Appeals Board determined their petitions were untimely filed. Even if timely, their claims would fail as the record contained proofs of service, rebutting their assertions of non-receipt. Therefore, the Appeals Board vacated its order granting reconsideration and dismissed both petitions.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationLien ConferenceDismissed LienLate FilingProof of ServicePresumption of ReceiptJurisdictionAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Judge
References
Case No. ADJ9343576
Regular
Mar 07, 2019

GABRIEL VELA vs. NORTHWOODS RESORTS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the applicant, Gabriel Vela, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed as untimely. Although the defendant claimed service of the Order Approving Compromise and Release on June 6, 2017, proof of service was defective, meaning the reconsideration period did not begin to run until actual receipt. The applicant stated he received the order on December 4, 2018, but his petition for reconsideration filed on January 9, 2019, was still beyond the statutory deadline. Furthermore, the applicant failed to allege any valid grounds for setting aside the compromise and release.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitDefective ServiceOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseProof of ServiceActual ReceiptGood CauseFraudMutual Mistake of Fact
References
Case No. ADJ7777187
Regular
Nov 13, 2012

PATRICIA ARRUDA vs. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SANTA CLARA, ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claimant's lien for failure to appear at a scheduled conference. The lien claimant failed to respond to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NIT) after not appearing, and their petition for reconsideration did not dispute the defendant's proper proof of service of the NIT. The Appeals Board upheld the dismissal, citing the presumption of receipt of properly mailed documents and the lien claimant's failure to establish good cause for their non-appearance or for the lien to be reinstated. The Board also admonished the lien claimant for failing to comply with form requirements for their petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantDismissal of LienReconsiderationFailure to AppearNotice of Intention to DismissProof of ServicePresumption of ReceiptOfficial Address RecordPetition for Reconsideration
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,870 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