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. ADJ11245405
Regular
May 13, 2019

JANESTER SHORT vs. CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY/JPL, SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Adjusted by HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and Petition for Removal as untimely. The WCAB clarified that filing deadlines for these petitions are jurisdictional and require actual receipt by the Board, not just mailing. In this case, the petition was filed after the extended deadline of March 8, 2019, making it invalid. Had it been timely, the WCAB indicated it would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaluntimelydismissaljurisdictionalfinal decisionnon-final decisionmail servicebusiness day extensionreceived by
References
4
Case No. ADJ8191769, ADJ8195704
Regular
Sep 28, 2015

GILBERT FLORES vs. GREIF, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA

This case involves a petition for removal or reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The primary reason for dismissal was that the petition was untimely filed, exceeding the 20-day deadline following personal service of the WCJ's decision. The WCAB clarified that timely filing requires receipt by the Board within the deadline, not just mailing. Since the petition was filed more than 20 days after personal service, it was jurisdictional invalid and therefore dismissed.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingPersonal ServiceWCJ Decision20-Day LimitJurisdictional Time LimitAppeals Board AuthorityReport and RecommendationFinal Order
References
4
Case No. ADJ7128393
Regular
Jun 10, 2010

TOMASA MARTINEZ vs. GUS JR.; FARMER'S INSURANCE COMPANY, Mid-Century Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal and dismissed a petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to change venue from Los Angeles to Riverside, claiming the initial filing was untimely. However, their petition lacked the required verification and statement under penalty of perjury regarding notice receipt, thus failing to establish timeliness under WCAB Rule 10410. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, noting that the defendant could still seek venue change later based on good cause for witness convenience.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADJ7128393PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONPETITION FOR REMOVALCHANGE OF VENUERIVERSIDE COUNTYLOS ANGELES COUNTYWCJLABOR CODE SECTION 5501.5WCAB RULE 10410
References
3
Case No. ADJ15495436
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

Calvin Grigsby vs. Grigsby and Associates, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered two petitions from the applicant, Calvin Grigsby: a December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal, and a December 24, 2024 Petition for Removal. The Board dismissed the reconsideration aspect of the December 9th petition as it pertained to non-final orders and denied removal, finding no demonstration of irreparable harm. The subsequent December 24th petition was also dismissed as it challenged the same December 4, 2024 orders. The Board also noted the applicant's failure to comply with page limits for the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNonfinal OrdersLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental Pleadings
References
15
Case No. ADJ8316817
Regular

MAUDIEL DE LEON vs. SELECT STAFFING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration filed by a lien claimant that was dismissed as untimely. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found the petition was filed outside the statutory 20-day period plus 5 days for mailing. Crucially, the Board held that a petition is deemed filed upon receipt, not mailing date, and untimely petitions are jurisdictional. Therefore, the Board lacked the power to grant the petition, resulting in its dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013JurisdictionalValle v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. ADJ10763593
Regular
Jan 03, 2023

MIRA SEPULVEDA vs. KNO MC, INC., NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant's untimely petition for reconsideration. Despite the Appeals Board's delay in acting on the petition, which could have tolled the deadline, the petition was still filed beyond the statutory 20-day period. This untimeliness, even accounting for service extensions and potential receipt dates, makes the petition dismissible. Therefore, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalLabor Code § 5909Due ProcessTollingWCJ ReportLien ClaimantWCABService Date
References
3
Case No. ADJ7788009 ADJ7846220
Regular
Apr 06, 2015

MANUEL GAMEZ vs. THE ORIGINAL PANTRY, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Manuel Gamez seeking workers' compensation benefits. The Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by a lien claimant. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed one day after the 20-day statutory deadline, calculated from the lien claimant's acknowledged receipt of the order on January 13, 2015. Despite potential issues with initial service of the order, the claimant's own admission of receipt established the filing deadline.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsJurisdictionalDefective ServiceActual ReceiptAppeals BoardWCJDismissal
References
7
Case No. ADJ7174342
Regular
Jul 29, 2010

ALVARO CARRILLO vs. CP MANUFACTURING, ZENITH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was sought from a non-final procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights. The WCAB also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding their objection to venue untimely. The defendant failed to file their venue objection within the 30-day window and did not provide the required sworn statement regarding receipt of notice. Therefore, venue remains in Los Angeles, though a future venue change for good cause is not precluded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenueFinal OrderProcedural OrderLabor Code section 5501.5(c)Appeals Board rule 10410Untimely ObjectionVenue
References
2
Case No. ADJ8503725
Regular
Jan 09, 2017

DAVID LEZCHUK (Deceased), MELISSA LEZCHUK, Guardian ad Litem for MADISON GRACE LEZCHUK, minor vs. CAL FIRE—DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's untimely petition for reconsideration. The Board also denied the defendant's petition, upholding the finding that Madison Lezchuk, the minor dependent, is entitled to an additional death benefit of $53,000. This additional benefit is to be placed in a trust due to the applicant's spending habits and inability to manage funds, ensuring protection of Madison's future interests. The WCAB affirmed that the "good cause" exception under Labor Code section 4704 allows for such awards despite the applicant's receipt of a CALPERS Special Death Benefit.

CALPERSSpecial Death BenefitLabor Code section 4707Labor Code section 4704good causeminor dependentdeath benefitGuardian ad Litemindustrial injuryWCJ discretion
References
3
Case No. ADJ1824122 (MON 0337881)
Regular
Jun 04, 2015

KIM SMITH vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES PUBLIC HEALTH, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Kim Smith's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed over 25 days after the WCJ's February 10, 2015 decision, exceeding the statutory filing deadline. Filing a petition requires actual receipt by the WCAB within the time allowed, not just mailing. Because the petition was untimely, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider it.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional LimitProof of MailingWCABWCJFinal DecisionService by MailAppeals BoardDismissal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 14,176 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