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. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ9074637
Regular
Dec 03, 2018

ANA RAMOS vs. TRI-STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES/ DIAMOND STAFFING; LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE, in liquidation, administered by CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration would not adequately address. Additionally, the lien claimant violated WCAB rules by including impermissible attachments to their petition. One attachment documented prohibited ex parte communications with the judge. The lien claimant was admonished to follow Appeals Board rules to avoid potential sanctions.

Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationEx Parte CommunicationLien ClaimantWCAB Rule 10842WCAB Rule 10324(c)SanctionsLabor Code Section 5813
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ6535347, ADJ6534384
Regular
Nov 02, 2015

CHRISTINE KNAPP vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The applicant sought to overturn findings of $53\%$ permanent disability and disputed the exclusion of vocational expert reports and a claim of $100\%$ disability. The Board found the petition contained numerous factual misrepresentations and violations of WCAB rules and professional conduct by the applicant's attorney. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which recommended denial due to the petition's legal defects and factual inaccuracies.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardOccupational Group NumberIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderMigraine HeadachesPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical Examiner
References
Case No. ADJ8345654
Regular
Jun 11, 2014

BUNNY SWANSON vs. ODYSSEY HEALTH CARE, ODYSSEY HEALTH CARE INC, SEDGWICK CMS, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ms. Swanson's petition for reconsideration because it was procedurally deficient, violating multiple board rules, including improper filing and failure to serve the defendant. The Administrative Law Judge's report, which the Board adopted, also found that Ms. Swanson failed to meet her burden of proof on causation. The judge determined that her claimed psychological injuries were not industrially caused and were unsupported by credible medical evidence, noting documented performance and attitude issues. Furthermore, the judge concluded that her personal discomfort with co-workers' lifestyles did not constitute a work-related injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportRule 10842Rule 10843Rule 10845Rule 10850Rule 10844sexual harassmenttoxic work environment
References
Case No. ADJ3860512 (OAK 0238823)
Regular
Feb 18, 2010

, Applicant vs. COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior findings and order. The dismissal was based on the applicant's submission of a petition that grossly exceeded the 25-page limit set by WCAB rules. Additionally, the petition improperly attempted to appeal existing exhibits already in the record. The WCAB warned the applicant of potential sanctions for future non-compliance with filing rules.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalWCJ ReportPage LimitationRule 10845(a)Rule 10232(a)(10)SanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Rule 10561
References
Case No. ADJ7256933
Regular
Mar 07, 2014

BRITTANY MILLER vs. CIMMS, INC. dba BURGER KING

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant in a workers' compensation matter before the WCAB. The Board reviewed the petition and the administrative law judge's report, ultimately adopting the judge's recommendation. Consequently, the Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration. Defense counsel also received a admonishment for violating WCAB Rule 10842(c) by attaching excessive documents to their answer.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendationadministrative law judgedismiss the petitionDefense counseladmonishedexcess documentsWCAB Rule 10842(c)Cal. Code Regs.
References
Case No. ADJ6918185
Regular
Jan 07, 2017

LORRAINE ROBBINS vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AAA AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration due to multiple procedural defects. Specifically, the petition was deemed skeletal, unverified, and lacked proof of service on adverse parties, all of which are required by Labor Code section 5902 and relevant Appeals Board Rules. The applicant was also provided notice of the lack of verification but failed to cure the defect. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and subsequent filings were rejected.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesWCJ ReportTimelinessVerification Defect
References
Case No. ADJ7414538
Regular
Sep 27, 2013

WILLOLA JOINTER vs. LOS ANGELES JOB CORPS CENTER, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant, Western Imaging Services, seeking reconsideration after its lien was denied by the Workers' Compensation Judge due to insufficient evidence regarding billing practices. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding Western misstated the evidence and the law, and failed to meet its burden of proof on the reasonableness of its charges. Furthermore, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions for apparent violations of rules regarding proper document execution and professional conduct. Western's petition misrepresented defendant's objections and cited outdated law, while failing to present evidence on the crucial issue of billing appropriateness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJBurden of ProofLabor CodeAppeals Board RulesSanctionsBad Faith
References
Case No. ADJ10175718
Regular
Nov 13, 2018

MARJORIE MARLOW vs. AT&T

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed AT&T's Petition for Reconsideration because it was a "skeletal" filing. The petition failed to specifically detail the grounds for reconsideration, cite relevant evidence from the record, or explain how the findings were unsupported. The Board emphasized that petitions must comply with Labor Code section 5902 and Appeals Board Rules 10842, 10846, and 10852. Without these specific details, a petition is subject to dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesRule 10842Rule 10846Rule 10852Specific References to RecordGrounds for ReconsiderationMaterial Evidence
References
Showing 1-10 of 4,475 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