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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
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. LAO 823855, LAO 823856
Regular
Oct 03, 2007

PEDRO M. RODRIGUEZ vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a denial of workers' compensation benefits, which was based on the finding that his claims were filed after notice of termination. The Board affirmed the denial, concluding that the applicant's job abandonment led to a termination prior to the filing of his claims. The Board also determined that the employer properly denied both the specific and cumulative trauma claims, thus negating a presumption of compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendantRalphs Grocery CompanySecurity GuardIndustrial Injury
References
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. ADJ2730977 (VNO 0472204)
Regular
Dec 23, 2013

JAMES FOLLOWAY vs. ACCOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., doing business as MOTEL 6, UNITED STATES FIRE & GUARANTEE INSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

In *Followay v. Accor North America, Inc.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's reasoning that the petition was filed 26 days after service by mail of the prior order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be *filed* (received by) the Board within 25 days, not merely mailed. Proof of mailing within the deadline is insufficient if the petition is not received within that jurisdictional timeframe.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely filingWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgejurisdictionalDismissalService by mailProof of serviceFiling date
References
Case No. ADJ8216409
Regular
Jan 20, 2015

NORMA FLORES vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/IHSS, YORK RISK SERVICES

In *Flores v. Department of Social Services/IHSS*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed an applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on November 26, 2014, more than twenty-five days after the WCJ's decision was served on October 20, 2014. The WCAB emphasized that the filing deadline for a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional. Therefore, the Board lacked the authority to grant the petition, regardless of its merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Jurisdictional Time LimitWCJ Report and RecommendationDismissalService of DecisionMailing ExtensionCode of Civil Procedure Section 1013
References
Case No. ADJ2648520
Regular
Mar 17, 2011

REYLENE ROSAS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed 61 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision, exceeding the 25-day jurisdictional deadline. The Board found proof of timely service by mail on the lien claimant's official address of record. Even if service were defective, the petition would still be untimely as it was filed 26 days after the claimant acknowledged receiving the decision, exceeding the 20-day period for filing after actual receipt in such cases. The Board would have also denied the petition on its merits had it not been dismissed for untimeliness.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalFindings and OrderWCJService by MailJurisdictional Time LimitsOfficial Address RecordDeclaration of Mailing
References
Case No. ADJ7697991
Regular
Jun 14, 2019

LUIS RAMIREZ PARRA vs. NEW ORANGE HILLS, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied lien claimant Psychological Assessment Services's petition for reconsideration as untimely. Lien claimant Professional Translation Services's petition for reconsideration was also denied, but on procedural grounds as it was filed one day late. The WCAB clarified that the filing deadline for a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional and requires actual receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantTimelinessDismissalJurisdictionalEAMSJoint Findings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ Report
References
Case No. ADJ7041310
Regular
Mar 03, 2014

ARCADIO TORRES vs. UNIVERSAL METAL PLATING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The WCAB found that the defendant's claim of late receipt of the Findings and Award was insufficient to overcome official records establishing timely service. The Board applied presumptions of regular performance of duty and ordinary course of mail, supported by case law, that service is complete upon mailing. Therefore, the petition was dismissed based on its untimeliness.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelyFindings and AwardProof of ServicePresumption of ReceiptOfficial RecordsWCABEvid. Code § 664Evid. Code § 641
References
Case No. ADJ6622890
Regular
Mar 10, 2014

GIOVANNA MUNOZ vs. MARY ADAMS COLLINS, ALLSTATE, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Western Imaging's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The Board found that Western Imaging's claim of non-receipt of the Order Dismissing Lien Claim was insufficient to overcome the presumption of service created by the defendant's proof of service and the ordinary course of mail. Even if Western Imaging's declaration were considered, the Board found credible evidence that they did, in fact, receive the order. Due to the untimeliness, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceRebuttable PresumptionOrdinary Course of MailUntimelyJurisdictionLien ClaimWCABAdministrative Law JudgeWestern Imaging
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,478 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