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. ADJ9041986
Regular
May 23, 2014

DANIELLE CHOTT vs. THE GAP, INC., SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY

This case concerns an applicant's attempt to rescind a compromise and release (C&R) agreement for a psyche injury claim. The applicant argued she withdrew her settlement offer before the defendant's claims specialist signed it. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the applicant's timely petition, finding the WCJ correctly rescinded the prior order approving the C&R. The Board concluded the applicant effectively revoked her offer before acceptance, and the defendant's subsequent actions supported rescission in the interest of justice.

Compromise and ReleaseRescissionPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5903Labor Code Section 5002Unilateral RescissionTimely PetitionGood CauseSubstantial Justice
References
Case No. ADJ6487905
Regular
Mar 30, 2012

SILVIA TORRES vs. OPTIMA STAFFING, INC., TAYLORED PERSONNEL & PAYROLL SERVICES, WAREHOUSE TECHNOLOGY, Inc., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO.

American Home Assurance sought reconsideration of a WCJ's denial of a stay pending a civil rescission action. The WCAB dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the order denying the stay was interlocutory and not a final decision. However, the Board granted removal of the case to itself to thoroughly review the complex factual and legal issues involved. This allows for further study and a more complete understanding before a final decision is issued.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalStay of ProceedingsRescission of PolicyFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ2569351 (LAO 00867165)
Regular
May 14, 2012

ZENAIDA SONGCO vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's rescission order was not a final order. However, the Board granted the applicant's petition for removal and rescinded the WCJ's March 5, 2012 Rescission Order. This was because the defendant's petition for reconsideration, which prompted the rescission, was untimely filed. Consequently, the WCJ lacked jurisdiction to rescind the original Stipulated Award.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalRescission OrderAmended Stipulated AwardHazardous Material SpecialistNeck InjurySpine InjuryShoulder InjuryRight Hip InjuryPsyche Injury
References
Case No. ADJ6865421
Regular
Sep 08, 2017

DAVID BERRIOS-SEGOVIA vs. EJ DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, MARKEL dba FIRST COMP, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case returns to the Appeals Board after the Court of Appeal determined that the rescission of an insurance policy is subject to mandatory arbitration. The Court annulled the arbitrator's prior findings, ordering further proceedings to determine the legal effectiveness of the insurer's rescission. The insurer must prove the employer's misrepresentations were material and that rescission is not being used to circumvent policy approval requirements. The matter is remanded to the arbitrator for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturMandatory ArbitrationLabor Code Section 5275Policy RescissionMaterial MisrepresentationUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundDepartment of InsuranceInsurance CommissionerPrior Approval
References
Case No. ADJ3839297 (GOL 00100930)
Regular
May 31, 2009

Edith Barrett vs. PACIFICA GRADUATE INSTITUTE, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for removal, finding it premature. The defendant sought to reinstate an earlier decision denying permanent disability benefits, arguing the WCJ's subsequent rescission of that order would cause irreparable harm through increased litigation costs. However, the WCJ's rescission was a proper procedural step following the applicant's petition for reconsideration, and the case was subsequently resubmitted. Therefore, removal was inappropriate as the defendant's alleged harm was speculative and not yet realized.

Petition for removalRescission of orderFindings and awardPermanent disabilityFurther discoveryIrreparable harmLitigation expensesWCJ report and recommendationTrial briefDue process
References
Case No. ADJ6564640
Regular
Nov 03, 2011

Antonio Garcia vs. HOWARD HAIG CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a dismissal order, claiming improper service of the defendant's dismissal petition and timely opposition. However, the judge rescinded the dismissal order before the reconsideration petition was formally acted upon. This rescission rendered the petition for reconsideration moot, as it was no longer seeking review of a final order. Therefore, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalLack of ProsecutionServiceNotice of Intention to DismissProof of ServiceAttorneyDue ProcessVacating Order
References
Case No. ADJ7616022
Regular
Dec 04, 2013

CARLOS RODAS vs. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC., ZURICH-AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This order dismisses Carlos Rodas's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the petition sought reconsideration of interlocutory, procedural decisions. Removal was also denied, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Judge's prior acceptance of a "Request for Rescission" was affirmed as it occurred before the original order became final.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWCABLabor Code § 5900Labor Code § 5902Labor Code § 5903
References
Case No. ADJ2479344
Regular
Dec 20, 2013

FERNANDO ADAME vs. AMERON INTERNATIONAL

The defendant sought reconsideration of an approved compromise and release settlement, arguing the Order failed to address the applicant's serious and willful misconduct claim. This omission was contended to be a mutual mistake, warranting rescission of the Order. The WCJ recommended granting reconsideration based on evidence of an agreement to resolve the serious and willful claim and issue an amended order. Consequently, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case to the trial level.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseRescissionSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code section 4553Mutual MistakeReport and RecommendationTrial LevelDecision After ReconsiderationPermanent Disability Benefit Advances
References
Case No. ADJ7617012, ADJ8069518
Regular
Jan 08, 2016

MARIANA CASTRO vs. DENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE dba SA SOLEIMANI DENTAL CORPORATION, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a stipulation and order to pay a lien claimant. The defendant argued the judge lacked jurisdiction as the lien claimant had been previously dismissed for failing to appear at a conference. The Board found the judge acted in excess of jurisdiction by approving the order while the dismissal order was still in effect. Good cause existed to rescind the order because the lien claimant was properly dismissed and failed to seek rescission before appearing at trial.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien Claimant DismissalPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderJurisdictionVoidable OrderGood CauseRescissionLabor CodeLien Conference
References
Case No. ADJ6720678
Regular
Aug 14, 2015

RAQUEL MEEK vs. KNOWLEDGE UNIVERSE, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's attempt to appeal a WCJ's decision to rescind dismissal orders for lien claims. The Appeals Board vacated its own order granting reconsideration because the defendant's petition was not for a final order. The Board also dismissed the defendant's removal petition as untimely, as it was filed over two months past the deadline following the rescission order. Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide proper proof of personal service, leading the Board to uphold the lien claimants' reliance on the later mail service date.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLien ClaimsDismissalRescissionLabor Code section 4903.06Appeals Board Rule 10859Appeals Board Rule 10848Appeals Board Rule 10505(c)
References
Showing 1-10 of 121 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