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. ADJ1611115 (STK 0117929)
Regular
Jul 25, 2016

THERESA POLLEX vs. CRESTWOOD HOSPITAL, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was taken from a non-final, interlocutory procedural order. 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, adequately addressed the issues, and reconsideration remains an adequate remedy should a final adverse decision issue later. Therefore, the Board ordered the dismissal of reconsideration and denial of removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ1611171 (SAC 0308205)
Regular
Jan 15, 2020

JOANNE IRVING vs. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by Joanne Irving. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's decision was not a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision is later adverse. Therefore, the Board found no grounds to grant the extraordinary remedy of removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionEvidentiary Decision
References
Case No. ADJ9808612
Regular
Aug 14, 2017

JAVIER RODRIGUEZ vs. REPUBLIC WASTE SERVICES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Javier Rodriguez's petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final, interlocutory order. Such orders do not determine substantive rights or liabilities or threshold issues essential to the claim. The WCAB also denied Rodriguez's petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would warrant this extraordinary remedy. Reconsideration is deemed an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision ultimately issues.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ11693361
Regular
Jan 21, 2020

FARAHNAZ MIRGOLI vs. CEPHEID, INC./DANAHER CORPORATION, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was taken from an interlocutory, procedural decision, not a final order that determined substantive rights or liability. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would prevent reconsideration from being an adequate remedy. The WCJ's report, which detailed these reasons, was adopted and incorporated into the Board's decision. Consequently, the applicant's attempts to appeal the procedural decision were unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ8534657
Regular
Dec 24, 2015

RAMON FUENTES vs. DE ANZA COUNTRY CLUB, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Ramon Fuentes' petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would justify this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, which was adopted by the WCAB, stated the decision only addressed an intermediate procedural issue. Therefore, reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues later.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory ProceduralEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ12649033
Regular
Feb 05, 2020

BARBARA JUAREZ vs. ANTHONY PITROWSKI, M.D.; NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANYT, adjusted by ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC

The Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because the underlying decision was not a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessitating this extraordinary remedy. Reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy should a final adverse decision eventually issue. Therefore, the Board found the petition to be procedurally improper and declined to grant the requested relief.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary Decisions
References
Case No. ADJ9120920
Regular
May 12, 2017

IGNACIA DE CALDERON BARCENAS vs. MIKHAV SOCIETY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a lien claimant, National Script Pharmacy, petitioning for reconsideration or removal of an order taking the case off calendar. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the order was interlocutory, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would likely be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision occurs. Therefore, the Board dismissed the reconsideration and denied the removal petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Taking Off CalendarPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ3521523 (OAK0322592), ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685), ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Oct 25, 2016

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pamela Zeilstra's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order. The WCAB determined that the workers' compensation judge's decision only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. Furthermore, the petition for removal was denied, as Zeilstra failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ1977669
Regular
Aug 03, 2016

MYRA RYAN vs. CARLSON, MESSER & TUNER, LLP, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order that did not determine substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and deeming reconsideration an adequate remedy. Therefore, the Board adopted the WCJ's report and incorporated its reasoning in reaching these conclusions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate Remedy
References
Showing 1-10 of 15,098 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