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. ADJ16042609, ADJ13305672, ADJ13956136, ADJ10174349, ADJ10876442
Regular
Oct 21, 2025

JESSE STONE ORDONAZ vs. BURGER KING STEVENSON RESTAURANTS, WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, CALIFORNIA FOOD MANAGEMENT, LLC, MITSUI SUMITOMO

The applicant, Jesse Stone Ordonaz, a declared vexatious litigant, filed a petition for removal after the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCJ) rejected their applications for adjudication. The rejection was based on the applicant's failure to comply with a pre-filing order requiring permission to file new applications. The applicant alleged fraud in a prior Compromise and Release and sought to relitigate claims. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, affirming the WCJ's decision because the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and did not abide by the vexatious litigant order.

Vexatious litigantPre-filing orderPetition for removalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder Rejecting Applications for AdjudicationCompromise and ReleaseFraudRelitigationWCJSubstantial prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ1990332 (OAK 0251897) ADJ332563 (OAK 0262649) ADJ2879880 (OAK 0263586) ADJ4303903 (OAK 0264811)
Regular
Nov 09, 2009

TERRY D. BROWN vs. PORT OF OAKLAND

The Appeals Board declared Terry Brown a vexatious litigant due to repeatedly filing unmeritorious papers attempting to relitigate previously determined issues. A prefiling order was implemented requiring review of his future filings.

Vexatious litigantRemovalAppeals BoardRule 10782Prefiling orderIn propria personaUnmeritorious petitionsConditional filingPresiding WCJGood cause
References
Case No. ADJ2948353 (SAL 0116403)
Regular
Jan 16, 2013

BRIAN CARRASCO vs. CLARK PEST CONTROL, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Brian Carrasco's petition for reconsideration as successive and untimely. Carrasco had previously filed a similar petition which was dismissed by the WCAB on October 4, 2012, and he failed to seek a writ of review from the Court of Appeal. The current petition, in addition to being a relitigation of dismissed issues, also violated court rules regarding formatting and length. The WCAB warned Carrasco that further attempts to relitigate these issues could result in him being declared a vexatious litigant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSuccessive PetitionVexatious LitigantCourt of AppealWrit of ReviewLabor Code Section 5950Final OrderPetition to ReopenLabor Code Section 5804
References
Case No. ADJ498505 (SFO 0420916), ADJ4168794 (SFO 0485699), ADJ6979901
Regular
May 15, 2012

DEBORAH ROLLINS vs. COUNTY OF SOLANO, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded a prior order, and canceled a trial date. This action prevents the relitigation of issues concerning the adequacy and applicant's competence to enter into a Compromise and Release agreement. The Board found that these issues were already decided with finality in a prior order that had res judicata effect. Therefore, the defendant would suffer prejudice by having to re-litigate settled matters.

RemovalCompromise and ReleaseAdequacyCompetenceReconsiderationFindings of Fact and LawLabor Code section 5803Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSua Sponte
References
Case No. ADJ3882107
Regular
Oct 04, 2012

PETER ARCARESE vs. LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL H. MILLER, STATE FARM CALIFORNIA, WC CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Peter Arcarese's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The petition was also dismissed as consecutive, attempting to relitigate issues previously addressed after a prior dismissal. Furthermore, the request for removal was denied as Arcarese failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderDismissed PetitionPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedyWrit of Review
References
Case No. ADJ7785733; ADJ7632939
Regular
Mar 12, 2013

JOHN SHEK vs. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER OF OAKLAND, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves a pro se applicant who filed a successive petition for removal and request for an immediate stay after his prior petition was denied. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition, stating that the applicant cannot relitigate issues already decided. The applicant's proper recourse for challenging the WCAB's decision is to file a petition for writ of review with the Court of Appeal. The supplemental petition was also rejected as it was filed without prior permission.

Petition for RemovalDenying ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Supplemental PetitionSuccessive PetitionWrit of ReviewCourt of AppealLabor Code Section 5950Dismissal of PetitionEn Banc Consideration
References
Case No. ADJ3887642 (MON 0244638) ADJ2350388 (MON 0241177)
Regular
Feb 04, 2010

MARION BARNES vs. JOHN RIORDAN PLUMBING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior order finding that the defendant waived its claim for credit of overpaid temporary disability indemnity. This waiver occurred because the defendant failed to challenge a previous WCJ order from July 2009 that determined the issue had already been waived. The Board affirmed that the July 2009 order was a final order because it determined a substantive right of the parties. Therefore, the defendant could not relitigate this waived issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Associationliquidationcovered claimscredit for overpaymenttemporary disability indemnitywaiverfinal ordersubstantive rightreconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ9859125 ADJ10002701 ADJ10647312
Regular
Nov 19, 2018

CHRISTOPHER RENFRO vs. YOUNGS COMMERCIAL TRANSFER, INC., NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE CO.; SWIFT TRANSPORTATION; GALLAGHER BASSETT, AND ET AL.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Christopher Renfro's Petition for Reconsideration and Disqualification. The dismissal was based on two grounds: Renfro failed to serve the petition on adverse parties as required by Labor Code section 5905, and his petition was successive, attempting to relitigate issues previously decided by the Board. The Board noted that Renfro should have sought a writ of review if he wished to challenge their prior decision. Any new issues raised were deemed waived for not being timely presented.

Petition for ReconsiderationDisqualification of JudgeSuccessive PetitionProof of ServiceAdverse PartiesWrit of ReviewWCJPreemptory ChallengeAppeals BoardLabor Code 5905
References
Case No. ADJ4098217 (BAK 0141522)
Regular
Jun 24, 2016

RAMONA RIOS vs. D.J. MANUFACTURING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

This case concerns a dispute over prejudgment interest awarded to CIGA against SCIF following an arbitration decision. SCIF argued that CIGA waived its right to additional interest by failing to seek reconsideration of the original arbitration award. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding that the arbitration award for reimbursement and interest was final and not subject to relitigation. The Board emphasized that SCIF was the aggrieved party by the initial arbitration decision and that the subsequent award simply calculated SCIF's existing obligation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPrejudgment InterestArbitration DecisionCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationState Compensation Insurance FundRes JudicataLabor CodeCivil CodeQualified Medical Evaluator
References
Case No. ADJ422850 (RDG 0119112) ADJ1486375 (RDG 0119113)
Regular
Dec 26, 2008

CHARLES D. PINEDA vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BAKERSFIELD, SEDGWICK CLAIMS SERVICES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration and removal, finding no final order was issued that would permit reconsideration, and the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm for removal. The WCAB will return the case to the trial level for a hearing on the defendant's petition to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, as the applicant appears to be repeatedly relitigating issues and filing unmeritorious motions. The WCJ will then proceed with the trial if appropriate after determining the vexatious litigant status.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedVexatious LitigantFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSanctionsDiscoveryReconsideration
References
Showing 1-10 of 19 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