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. 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. ADJ9997985, ADJ9997986, ADJ10037755
Regular
Apr 10, 2017

DAVID LIVINGSTON vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC.;, PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION;, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for removal filed by the defendant. The WCAB found the petition was untimely because it was filed one day after the 20-day deadline for removal following personal service. This deadline is jurisdictional, and the WCAB cannot consider petitions filed outside this timeframe. Therefore, the petition was dismissed with no request for supplemental pleading granted.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingPersonal ServiceWCJ DecisionAppeals Board RuleJurisdictional Time LimitSupplemental PleadingWCAB Rule 10848WCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10507
References
Case No. ADJ8937901
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

SANDRA DELAO vs. MARTIN TRANSPORTATION, LTD., CANNON COCHRAN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sandra Delao's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was filed over 25 days after the WCJ's December 10, 2015 decision, exceeding the statutory filing deadline. Additionally, the petition was not verified and was not served on applicant's attorney or defendant's attorney, providing further grounds for dismissal. Therefore, the Board had no jurisdiction to consider the petition's merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionalVerificationServiceLabor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 5903Rule 10507Rule 10508Rule 10845
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. ADJ9148328
Regular
Mar 13, 2017

PERCY NOEL vs. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, MATRIX ROCKLIN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Percy Noel's Petitions for Removal. The WCAB found the petitions were untimely filed, exceeding the 25-day deadline for removal petitions from a non-final decision served by mail. Proof of mailing was insufficient, and the WCAB requires actual receipt within the time limit. Even if timely, the WCAB would have denied the petitions on their merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingWCABWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeService by MailFiling DeadlineNon-final DecisionWCJ ReportDismissalCalifornia Code of Regulations
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. ADJ11446545
Regular
Dec 03, 2019

ROSA LOPEZ RODRIGUEZ vs. UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES SUPPLY COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case concerns a dispute over the appropriate medical specialty for a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The applicant, Rosa Lopez Rodriguez, initially requested a chiropractic QME panel, which was issued first. The defendant objected, arguing that chiropractic was inappropriate due to the applicant's prior surgery and lack of full recovery. The Medical Unit then invalidated the chiropractic panel and issued an orthopedic surgery panel. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning the WCJ's decision. The Board held that the party who first requests a QME panel has the right to designate the specialty and that the defendant failed to provide sufficient grounds to invalidate the chiropractic panel. Therefore, the Board amended the findings to sustain the applicant's objection and affirm chiropractic as the appropriate panel specialty.

AD Rule 31.5(a)(10)AD Rule 31.5(a)(9)AD Rule 31.1(b)Labor Code section 4062Labor Code section 4062.2Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)QME panel specialtyPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Unit determination
References
Case No. ADJ2154380 (SAC 0363541)
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

Spencer Davis vs. Clark & Sullivan, Inc., LWP Claims Sacramento, Berkshire Hathaway San Francisco, Berkshire Hathaway Pasadena

The defendant sought to disqualify the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to their unavailability for deposition within the regulatory 120-day timeframe. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition for removal, affirming the lower order. The WCAB found that Administrative Director (AD) Rule 31.5, concerning replacement panels, does not apply to QME unavailability for deposition. Furthermore, the Board found no demonstrable prejudice or irreparable harm, noting the defendant's own rescheduling of the deposition.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME UnavailabilityDeposition SchedulingAdministrative Director RulesAD Rule 35.5(f)AD Rule 31.5(a)(5)AD Rule 33PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,474 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