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. ADJ3399937 (VNO 0423516 ADJ8997142 ADJ10559387 ADJ7656828
Regular
Feb 27, 2019

DAVE ZADA vs. ALPRO MILLWORKING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Dave Zada's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition untimely, successive, and skeletal, failing to meet procedural requirements for reconsideration. Zada also did not demonstrate how he was aggrieved by the prior WCAB decision. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPro PerSuccessive PetitionUntimely PetitionSkeletal PetitionAggrieved PartyJurisdictional Time LimitVerified PleadingsMaterial EvidenceProof of Service
References
Case No. ADJ3393289 (LAO0594595)
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

BERNARD WILLIAM PONZI vs. LOS ANGELES MISSIONARY SOCIETY, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's request to file a supplemental petition for reconsideration but dismissed the original petition. The original petition was untimely, unverified, and skeletal, failing to meet procedural requirements for seeking reconsideration of prior orders. As no final order has issued since September 8, 1997, the applicant was not deemed aggrieved by a final decision. The WCAB recommended the applicant contact the Information and Assistance Officer for case status inquiries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardLien OrderPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionSkeletal PetitionAggrieved PartyLabor Code Section 5900
References
Case No. ADJ8183477
Regular
Jan 14, 2016

DOLORES MOSELEY vs. NOIA RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., ICW GROUP/INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Dolores Moseley's petition for reconsideration. The petition was untimely as it sought reconsideration of an award made over a year prior to filing. Furthermore, the petition was unverified and lacked specificity regarding the issues and legal arguments. Finally, the orders Moseley sought to reconsider were either vacated or deemed non-final procedural decisions, rendering the petition moot.

Labor Code Section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Dismissing PetitionOrder Vacating Trial DateStipulations with Request for AwardTimelinessJurisdictionalVerification
References
Case No. ADJ7713043, ADJ6929457
Regular
May 29, 2012

HAE LEE vs. BEVERLY WORLD INDUSTRIES, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Applicant Hae Lee's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal was based on two primary grounds: the petition's lack of verification as required by Labor Code section 5902 and its status as a "skeletal" pleading. Even if properly verified, the Board indicated the petition would have been denied on its merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. The Board also noted the petition bordered on frivolous and returned the matter to the WCJ for consideration of sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVerified PetitionLabor Code section 5902Skeletal PetitionReport and RecommendationWCJDismissalFrivolous PetitionSanctions
References
Case No. ADJ10559387 (VNO 0423516)
Regular
Apr 13, 2020

DAVE ZADA vs. ALPRO MILL WORKING, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition to be skeletal, lacking specific grounds, failure to cite the record, and crucially, it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. No timely cure or explanation was provided for the unverified petition. The WCAB also noted that it would have denied the petition on the merits based on the WCJ's report had procedural defects not led to dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesWCJ ReportVacating GrantDismissing PetitionVerification RequirementMaterial Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ1574286
Regular
Oct 23, 2013

JUTTA BENNETT vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FRONTIER INSURANCE, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the California Physician Network's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not timely filed. The petition was first received by the Board on August 29, 2013, well past the August 9th deadline after the July 10th order dismissing the lien. Furthermore, the petition was unverified and failed to state any specific legal grounds for reconsideration as required by statute. The Board also noted that even if the merits were considered, the petition would have been denied due to its "skeletal" nature and lack of evidentiary support.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLien ClaimantLien conferenceNotice of Intent to Dismiss LienOrder Dismissing LienPetition for ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSLabor CodeTimely Filed
References
Case No. ADJ3755232
Regular
Jan 11, 2016

ABDUL AKHGAR aka AKHMADMIR ABDULMIR vs. MED-PHARMEX, INC., EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and Removal was dismissed for multiple procedural defects. Specifically, the petition failed to identify the order being challenged, lacked grounds, supporting evidence, and legal citations. Furthermore, the petition was unverified and did not demonstrate irreparable harm or prejudice, rendering it skeletal and insufficient for either reconsideration or removal. The Board also reminded parties of their service and property disclosure duties.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalskeletal petitionunverified petitionfinal ordersubstantive rightthreshold issueirreparable harmsubstantial prejudiceinterlocutory decision
References
Case No. LAO 860448, LAO 860449
Regular
Mar 07, 2008

DAVID MORRIS vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Dr. Khalid Ahmed's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed after the statutory deadline. The petition was also deemed insufficient due to its skeletal nature, lack of verification, and failure to meet regulatory requirements for supporting arguments with references to the record and law. Therefore, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely and procedurally deficient petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionSkeletal PetitionUntimely PetitionLabor Code section 10609Labor Code section 4616Labor Code section 5902Labor Code section 5903
References
Case No. LAO 836401
Regular
Jun 26, 2007

GLORIA M. GONZALEZ vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a previous award because it was "skeletal," lacking specific references to the record and legal principles. Furthermore, the applicant's amended petition was filed seven days after the statutory deadline, and supplemental petitions require prior Board approval, which was not obtained. The Board concluded that the amended petition would not be considered, even as a supplemental filing, as it appeared to be an attempt to extend the filing period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionmentmedical treatmentLC 4061/4062P&S
References
Showing 1-10 of 13,503 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