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. ADJ6958416
Regular
May 19, 2011

Norma Zell vs. ALAMEDA COUNTY, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's first petition for reconsideration, amending the original award to increase her permanent disability rating from 20% to 24% based on corrected medical calculations. The Board denied the applicant's second petition for reconsideration regarding her left wrist injury, adopting the judge's reasoning that it was not a compensable industrial injury. The original finding of a cumulative industrial injury to the right wrist during her employment as a deputy sheriff was affirmed. The award was amended to reflect the 24% permanent disability rating and adjusted attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative Industrial InjuryRight Wrist InjuryDeputy SheriffPermanent Disability RatingAMA GuideWhole Person ImpairmentPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardDecision After Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ1274563 (SRO 0129927) ADJ4637822 (SRO 0128062) ADJ4428104 (SRO 0125786)
Regular
Nov 05, 2008

Irma Brandt vs. SEA RANCH VILLAGE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant SCIF's and applicant Brandt's petitions for reconsideration of the WCJ's decision. The Board affirmed that Brandt sustained a compensable left shoulder injury as a consequence of her right shoulder injury but found no industrial causation for her wrist/hand injuries. Additionally, the Board dismissed Brandt's second petition for reconsideration as untimely filed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Joint FindingsAward and OrdersAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)consequence injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentLabor Code section 4062Utilization Review (UR)
References
1
Case No. ADJ2969856 (SAL 0073653)
Regular
Apr 01, 2009

PINA vs. MEYER TOMATORES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of findings that they failed to respond to a request for an epidural injection authorization and that a treating physician provided reasonable and necessary care. The Board dismissed a second petition concerning a WCJ's report, deeming it not a final order. The Board granted reconsideration of the initial petition solely to order the defendant to authorize the epidural injection. All other aspects of the original award were affirmed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationEpidural InjectionReasonable and Necessary TreatmentUtilization ReviewBoard Rule §10510Floyd Skeren & KellyWCJ Report and RecommendationFinal OrderAggrieved Party
References
1
Case No. ADJ13475083
Regular
Feb 28, 2025

Miguel Garcia Perez vs. Opportunity Staffing, Inc.

Applicant Miguel Garcia Perez and defendant Opportunity Staffing, Inc. both sought reconsideration of a "Second Amended Findings and Award" from November 26, 2024. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration and denied the defendant's, also affirming the "Second Amended Findings and Award" with specific amendments. Key issues included applicant's earnings, temporary disability period, supplemental job displacement benefits, attorney's fees, and apportionment. The Board found the WCJ erred in not honoring the parties' stipulation of applicant being a maximum earner, deferred the issues of temporary disability length and attorney's fees for further development, and determined the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof for apportionment under Labor Code sections 4664 and 4663.

StipulationMaximum EarnerApportionmentTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeesPetition for ReconsiderationLabor CodeMedical EvidenceCausation
References
17
Case No. ADJ3808038 (LAO 0819022)
Regular
Feb 11, 2010

NICOLAS F. BENINKOFF (Deceased), LORENA BENINKOFF (Widow) vs. DARCO METAL SURFACING, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied petitions for removal and reconsideration from lien claimants and the defendant, and denied the applicant's reconsideration petition. Lien claimants Kan and Ace's petition for removal was denied as they failed to show substantial prejudice, and their reconsideration petition was dismissed as the prior order was not final. The applicant's reconsideration petition was denied because her claim for home healthcare services was deemed an untimely lien claim under Labor Code section 4903.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationLien ClaimantsUntimely LienLabor Code section 4903.5Labor Code section 5405Home Healthcare ServicesMedical TreatmentTransportation Expenses
References
5
Case No. EUR 0038527
Regular
Jan 25, 2008

JOHN TURNER vs. CITY OF EUREKA, Permissibly Self-Insured, c/o REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

The defendant employer sought reconsideration of a WCJ's award finding industrial injury to the applicant's heart and Hepatitis C. The defendant claimed newly discovered evidence existed that undermined the original decision. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration for one case number, rescinded the WCJ's award, and returned the matter for further proceedings to consider the new evidence. The petition for reconsideration of a second, dismissed case number was dismissed as untimely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentNewly Discovered EvidenceReport and RecommendationDuplicate FileDismissed with PrejudiceTimeliness
References
4
Case No. ADJ300431 (FRE 0203618) ADJ1896245 (FRE 0203619) ADJ3576423 (FRE 0203620)
Regular
Jan 14, 2014

Sherrill Perkins vs. Fresno Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal but granted her petition for reconsideration. Applicant's 40-page petition for reconsideration violated the 25-page limit and lacked good cause for exceeding it. Therefore, the Board will dismiss the petition unless a compliant one is refiled within ten days, while simultaneously addressing the attorney's separate fee reconsideration. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances to justify removal and will proceed with reconsideration after compliance with filing rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWCJcumulative traumatemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityapportionmentpenalties
References
2
Case No. ADJ7687373
Regular
Nov 16, 2012

ROSANNE ABNET vs. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY EDUCATION OFFICE

This case involves Rosanne Abnet's second attempt to appeal the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) denial of her reconsideration. Her latest filing, treated as a petition for reconsideration, is dismissed because it was filed untimely, exceeding the statutory 20-day limit plus mailing extension. Furthermore, the petition is dismissed as successive, as an applicant cannot file a second reconsideration petition after the WCAB has already ruled on a prior one. The proper avenue for further appeal would have been a writ of review.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissedSuccessive PetitionLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeAppeals BoardWrit of ReviewCrowe Glass Company v. I.A.C.
References
1
Case No. ADJ2494845 (AHM 0113398)
Regular
Mar 21, 2011

DONALD W. STENERSON vs. TWR FRAMING/TWR ENTERPRISES, INC., CHARTIS COSTA MESA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Donald W. Stenerson's second petition for reconsideration. This dismissal occurred because Stenerson had previously filed a petition for reconsideration that was denied, and filing a second petition challenging the same original decision and the Board's prior denial is procedurally impermissible. Such successive petitions are barred, and the proper avenue for appeal after a denied petition is a writ of review. Additionally, the Board noted the petition was untimely.

Petition for reconsiderationDismissedConsecutive petitionSuccessive petitionTimely petitionWrit of reviewWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeCrowe Glass Company
References
4
Case No. ADJ249271 (VNO 0541680) ADJ2342595 (VNO 0541714)
Regular
Jul 01, 2011

MARIA GUTIERREZ vs. VOLT INFORMATION SCIENCES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case involves a defendant's second petition for reconsideration filed after their initial petition was denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB dismissed the second petition as successive and procedurally improper. Under established law, a party cannot file a new petition for reconsideration to challenge a prior WCAB decision that has already been addressed. The defendant's only recourse after a denied petition is to seek a writ of review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalSuccessive PetitionWorkers' Compensation JudgeWrit of ReviewCrowe Glass CompanyNavarro v. A&A FarmingWCAB en bancAdministrative Law Judge
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 21,849 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