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. ADJ8149506
Regular
Jul 19, 2017

MARTHA BELTRAN vs. KIMCO STAFFING/KIMSTAFF HR, SEDGWICK CMS

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: A Petition for Reconsideration was filed by a lien claimant on June 9, 2017, challenging Findings and Orders issued on May 15, 2017. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) issued an order rescinding those Findings and Orders on June 26, 2017. However, this rescission occurred 16 days after the petition, exceeding the 15-day limit under Rule 10859, rendering the rescission order void. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to affirm the WCJ's intent, validating the rescinded Findings and Orders.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder RescindingFindings and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeLien ClaimantVoid OrderAffirm OrderKimco StaffingSedgwick CMS
References
Case No. ADJ11116979
Regular
Oct 19, 2018

DIANA RAY vs. PRG INSURANCE RECRUITERS, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the underlying August 28, 2018 order was not a "final" order. The WCAB granted a petition for removal, finding that the WCJ's August 28, 2018 decision was interlocutory and not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural OrderEvidentiary Decision
References
Case No. LBO 0384614
Regular
Jan 23, 2008

CAROLINA SALES vs. ROSS STORES, INC. and XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, MJO STAFFING and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order vacating a Compromise and Release (C&R). The Board then granted reconsideration on its own motion to rescind the original C&R approval. This action affirmed the WCJ's decision to vacate the C&R, effectively returning the parties to their pre-settlement status, due to the applicant's expressed confusion and potential lack of full understanding of the agreement's terms.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder VacatingFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900Good CauseUnverified PetitionIndustrial InjuryApplicant's UnderstandingWCJ Discretion
References
Case No. ADJ8500075
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

RUDI QUINTEROS vs. STAMOULES PRODUCE, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal after the WCJ rescinded an order approving a compromise and release (C&R). The applicant claimed a "change of heart" as the basis for setting aside the C&R, which the defendant argued was insufficient grounds. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding the WCJ's order and substituting an order suspending the C&R approval. The case was returned to the WCJ to hold a status conference to allow the applicant to present arguments for setting aside the C&R.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalCompromise and ReleasePetition to Set AsideOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOrder Rescinding OrderGood CauseFraudMistakeUndue Influence
References
Case No. ADJ9945229
Regular
Feb 20, 2018

THERESA HAVENS vs. KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an Order for Costs, which directed the defendant to pay $\$500.00$ for a deposition. The Board found that an Order for Costs constitutes a "final" order as it determines a substantive liability for the defendant. Therefore, reconsideration was the appropriate remedy, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder for CostsRescinded OrderTrial LevelWCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeFinal OrderSubstantive LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory Orders
References
Case No. ADJ3736897 (RIV 0044021)
Regular
Apr 07, 2014

TERESA BOLTON vs. PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petitions for removal, finding the defendant's petition for reconsideration untimely. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order vacating a prior minute order that required the defendant to pay $300 to the lien claimant. Consequently, the November 27, 2013 minute order, requiring the defendant to pay the costs, was reinstated. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWCJ AuthorityMinute OrderLien ClaimantCosts AwardRescinded OrderReinstated OrderAppeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ9876334
Regular
Dec 12, 2017

ERIC DOZIER vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Kaiser Permanente's petition for reconsideration because the order they sought to appeal was not a final order. They also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board further clarified that the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely due to a defective service designation on the original Order Approving Compromise and Release. Finally, the WCJ acted within their authority to rescind the Order Approving Compromise and Release after a timely reconsideration petition was filed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOACRDefective Service
References
Case No. ADJ9496892
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

JUNE JONES vs. CALIFORNIA SPECIAL PATROL, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Applicant's attorney sought reconsideration of an Order Rescinding Submission, Order Vacating Finding and Order, and Order to Develop the Record dated June 27, 2025, arguing further record development was unnecessary. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition and denial if treated as a petition for removal. The Appeals Board timely acted on the petition but noted issues with notice of transmission to the parties. They dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the underlying order non-final, and denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Rescinding SubmissionFindings and OrderLabor Code section 5909Transmission of CaseElectronic Adjudication Management SystemNotice of TransmissionFinal Order
References
Case No. ADJ6780734
Regular
Sep 08, 2011

Venessa Vielma vs. The Pape Group, Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the WCJ issued an Order Approving Compromise and Release one day after the jurisdictional 15-day period to act on the applicant's petition for reconsideration had expired. This untimely action rendered the WCJ's Order and the prior Findings, Award and Order without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Board rescinded both the Order Approving Compromise and Release and the Findings Award and Order. The matter is returned to the trial level for further review of the settlement by the WCJ.

Writ of MandatePetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseFindings Award and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
Case No. ADJ455873 (LAO 0886539)
Regular
Sep 26, 2016

JAMES TOWNSEND vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, HARBOR DIVISION

This case concerns a lien claimant, BCP Collections, Inc., seeking reconsideration of an order denying its lien for $\$8,661.87$. The initial denial was based on BCP's alleged failure to provide proof of service for its Notice of Intention to allow the lien. However, the administrative law judge later vacated this order, recognizing proof of service had been timely filed. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed BCP's petition for reconsideration because the rescinded order was not a final decision. As no final determination of the lien currently exists, reconsideration is procedurally improper.

BCP CollectionsNotice of IntentionProof of ServiceEAMSLien ClaimPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing LienLien ConferenceRescinded OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
Showing 1-10 of 10,563 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