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. ADJ7686404
Regular
Jul 28, 2016

ALBERTO CORREA LOPEZ vs. GATANAGA NURSERY; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it 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, an extraordinary remedy, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition for removal were dismissed and denied, respectively.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
6
Case No. ADJ11384209
Regular
Aug 02, 2019

DONNY QUENZER, vs. ITS TECHNOLOGIES & LOGISTICS, LLC,, HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the prior decision was not a "final" order as it only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. Removal is reserved for situations where reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy later. Therefore, both the reconsideration and removal requests were denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ10902087
Regular
Jan 24, 2019

CURTIS SEYMORE vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PSI

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Seymore's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interim order, not a final decision that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied Seymore's petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. Seymore failed to demonstrate that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy later in the proceedings. Therefore, both the reconsideration and removal petitions were denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary Decision
References
6
Case No. ADJ10596146
Regular
Jan 30, 2018

GARY OLSEN vs. WOOD COLONY WOODWORK, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Gary Olsen's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory order concerning a qualified medical examination. The WCAB also denied Olsen's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and Olsen failed to demonstrate why reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy later. Therefore, both the reconsideration and removal petitions were denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionPanel Qualified Medical ExaminationExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
6
Case No. ADJ1906422 (SFO 0512303)
Regular
Nov 09, 2010

Thomas Martinez vs. SAN MATEO COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior order. The applicant sought to have the case remanded to allow evidence on whether he was represented by counsel when obtaining a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The WCAB found the prior order non-final, thus not subject to reconsideration, and denied the petition for removal as an extraordinary remedy. The applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 4062Medical-Legal ProceduresQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel QMERepresented by CounselUnrepresented WorkerAsbestos Case
References
5
Case No. ADJ9620902
Regular
Apr 05, 2019

ANGELA OLIVER vs. ROSS STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Angela Oliver's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order addressing only discovery issues. The WCAB also denied Oliver's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted by the Board. Therefore, the petitions seeking interlocutory review were dismissed and denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary RemedyWCJ DecisionDiscovery IssuesThreshold Issue
References
6
Case No. ADJ10938656
Regular
Apr 18, 2018

LAURIE JOHNSON vs. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Laurie Johnson's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory order addressing venue, not a substantive right or threshold issue. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted by the Board. Therefore, both petitions were dismissed or denied as a matter of law.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural DecisionVenueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
6
Case No. ADJ9498698 ADJ9537832
Regular
Apr 08, 2015

RAFEEK RAHEEM vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed an applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding the prior decision was not a "final" order as it only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The Board also denied the applicant's petition for removal, deeming it an extraordinary remedy not warranted by the circumstances. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the denial of removal, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy later. The Board concluded the issuance of a Qualified Medical Evaluator panel did not cause any demonstrated harm or prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalfinal ordersubstantive right or liabilitythreshold issueinterlocutory procedural decisionevidentiary decisionextraordinary remedysubstantial prejudice
References
6
Case No. ADJ1513251 (OAK 0333241)
Regular
Sep 13, 2013

ANTONIO ARROYO vs. COSTCO, PSI, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant Antonio Arroyo. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The petition for removal was also denied, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the Board dismissed the reconsideration petition and denied removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNon-FinalPre-trial Order
References
6
Case No. ADJ11525401
Regular
Feb 11, 2019

JOAQUIN CABALLERO vs. HACIENDA FARM SERVICES, INC., RISICO CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it sought review of an interlocutory order regarding a replacement Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) panel. Such orders are not considered "final" decisions that can be reconsidered under Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy later. Therefore, the WCAB found no grounds to grant either petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalfinal ordersubstantive rightliabilitythreshold issueinterlocutoryprocedural decisionevidentiary decision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 17,067 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