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. 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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ6959869
Regular
Nov 12, 2013

DAVID BODIN vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order that dismissed "Entertainment Partners" as a party defendant with prejudice. The applicant sought to have the dismissal be without prejudice to allow for potential rejoining of the defendant. The Board agreed with the judge's recommendation to amend the dismissal order. Therefore, Entertainment Partners is dismissed without prejudice, allowing the applicant to potentially rejoin them if further discovery warrants.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Party DefendantsCumulative Trauma InjuryDismissal Without PrejudiceFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeRejoin Defendant
References
Case No. ADJ8905655
Regular
Nov 09, 2015

JAN MELLEMA vs. CHEVRON, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Zurich's Petition for Reconsideration and denied its Petition for Removal. Zurich sought reconsideration of an order joining it as a defendant, but the Board found that reconsideration is only available for final orders, not interlocutory ones like party joinder. While Zurich's petition was timely, the Board denied removal because Zurich failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the joinder. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the correct parties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoinder of Party DefendantInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmDefective ServiceTimeliness
References
Case No. ADJ1738288 (STK 0190763) ADJ2794711 (STK 0190762) ADJ1287276 (STK 0190764) ADJ1593256 (STK 0190765) ADJ2352943 (STK 0190766)
Regular
Mar 26, 2010

GLORIA VANOVER-LOPEZ vs. WESTLAND TECHNOLOGY and CIGA and ITS SERVICING FACILITY, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, for PNIC IN LIQUIDATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the prior award and remanded the case for further proceedings due to a due process violation against CIGA. The WCAB found that CIGA was improperly forced to trial after being dismissed and subsequently rejoined as a party without proper notice or opportunity to participate in discovery or preparation. While CIGA's arguments regarding liability were potentially flawed, fundamental fairness required CIGA to have an opportunity to be heard. The WCAB recommended a new judge be assigned for further proceedings.

CIGAReconsiderationDue ProcessJoinderDismissalStatute of LimitationsPermanent DisabilityMedical TreatmentWCJAdjudication
References
Case No. ADJ1973537 (SRO 0141664)
Regular
Jun 24, 2019

KENT WARD vs. TIMEC COMPANY, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of an arbitration decision that found his employer, Timec, 25% comparatively negligent for his injury, reducing Timec's credit from a third-party settlement. The applicant argued for a higher employer negligence percentage to increase his potential workers' compensation benefits. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the Arbitrator's findings and reasoning. The Board found the applicant failed to present evidence to overcome the Arbitrator's negligence determination.

Third-party creditComparative negligenceArbitrator's findingsPetition for reconsiderationLabor Code section 3861Employer's liabilityThird-party claim valueNet settlement amountCredit against workers' compensationEmployer's breach of duty
References
Case No. ADJ9334766, ADJ319279 (MON 0358792), ADJ3055294 (MON 0361854)
Regular
Jul 17, 2015

TROY WHITETO vs. LONG BEACH TRANSIT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Troy Whiteto's Petition for Reconsideration against Long Beach Transit. The dismissal was based on improper service, as the applicant failed to serve all adverse parties as required by Labor Code section 5905 and WCAB Rule 10510(b). Specifically, the applicant only served one of the defendant's attorneys and did not serve other relevant parties. Consequently, the WCAB found the petition procedurally deficient and ordered its dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalServiceAdverse PartiesAttorney of RecordWCJ ReportLabor Code section 5905WCAB Rule 10510(b)Represented PartyLong Beach Transit
References
Case No. ADJ8944782
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

MARLYN HERNANDEZ vs. PINK HOUSE IMPORTS, LLC, PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

Citywide Scanning Service, Inc. sought reconsideration of discovery orders denying its objections, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed its petition. The Board found that the orders were interlocutory and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, Citywide, not being a party to the underlying case and not demonstrating lien claimant status, lacked standing to object or file the petition. The Board clarified that the proper procedure for contesting interlocutory discovery orders is a petition for removal, but only parties aggrieved may file it.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumStandingFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery MattersLien ClaimantWCAB Rule 10843Petition for Removal
References
Case No. ADJ603568 (MON 0359075)
Regular
Feb 22, 2013

COLEE PITCHFORD vs. TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION, CHARTIS

In Pitchford v. Trimac Transportation, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was primarily based on the petition's failure to comply with Labor Code section 5905, which mandates service on all adverse parties. The WCAB also noted that even if properly served, the petition would have been denied on its merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Finally, the Board clarified that MJR Management Services, Inc. is not a party but an alleged representative, and their representation of a lien claimant lacked proper documentation in the EAMS.

Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5905Adverse partiesService deficiencyWorkers' compensation administrative law judgeReport and RecommendationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSLien claimantMJR Management Services
References
Case No. ADJ2746818
Regular
Dec 16, 2019

GUSTAVO VELA vs. CAFE MIDI. INC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION ISURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Technology Insurance Company (Petitioner), a non-party, challenging an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) concerning applicant Gustavo Vela. Petitioner sought to set aside the OACR, alleging denial of due process due to an unrelated, subsequent claim involving Petitioner. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition, primarily because it was filed untimely, exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline after Petitioner received the OACR. Furthermore, even if timely, the Petition would have been dismissed for lack of standing as Petitioner was not a party to the original settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and Releaseaggrieved personLabor Code section 5900due processcumulative trauma claimadministrative law judgeuntimely petition
References
Case No. ADJ10084051
Regular
Oct 14, 2019

LIDIO LEONEL TORRES vs. KML SERVICES INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

CareMeridian, LLC, a healthcare provider, sought to set aside an approved Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) compromise and release (C&R) agreement that resolved the applicant's future medical care. CareMeridian argued it was an aggrieved party and was denied due process regarding payment for its services. The WCAB denied the petition, finding CareMeridian was not a party to the C&R and therefore not entitled to notice or a hearing at the time of its approval. Furthermore, the Board determined that CareMeridian lacked standing to challenge the C&R's adequacy, as the applicant and insurer had the statutory right to compromise their liabilities.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartyStandingDue ProcessMedical Provider LienSkeleton PetitionNon-PartyNoticeOpportunity to Be Heard
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,634 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