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. ADJ10185039
Regular
Feb 23, 2017

GERARDO ARELLANOS TORRES vs. WE CARE RECYCLING ADMINISTRATION, LLC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a Petition for Removal due to a deficient record. The WCJ's denial of the defendant's petition to compel lacked a proper record and explanation. The Board rescinded the WCJ's prior order and returned the case for further proceedings. This action ensures all issues are adjudicated with adequate documentation and reasoned decisions as required by law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJRescind DecisionReturn to Trial LevelPetition to CompelLabor CodeStatement of ReasonsMinutes of HearingSummary of Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ3712262 (AHM 0138707)
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

BRIAN HICKS vs. TENNESSEE TITANS, CAROLINA PANTHERS, et al.

This case involves a lien claimant, ACS Recovery Services, Inc., seeking reconsideration of a disallowance of its lien and denial of penalties. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed ACS's petition for reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. The WCJ's report highlighted this defect, and ACS failed to cure it or provide a compelling explanation within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition, noting it would have been denied on the merits otherwise.

ACS Recovery ServicesLien claimantPetition for reconsiderationVerified petitionLabor Code section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyDisallowancePenaltiesInterestWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ9771539
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

MARCELA OSORIO ORTIZ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.; Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified, a mandatory requirement under Labor Code section 5902. The petitioner was put on notice of this defect by both the WCJ and the defendant, but failed to cure it or provide a compelling explanation within a reasonable time. The Board also admonished applicant's attorney for filing a petition containing demonstrably false statements regarding notice of hearings and receipt of the applicant's file, which violated Labor Code section 5813. Had the petition not been dismissed for lack of verification, it would have been denied on the merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionLabor Code Section 5902Verification DefectLucena v. Diablo Auto BodyNotice of DefectCure DefectCompelling ReasonDismissalMerits Denial
References
Case No. ADJ8686864
Regular
Dec 23, 2015

JOSE MOLLINEDO vs. STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, SPARTA INSURANCE, AMERICAN CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified. Labor Code section 5902 mandates verification, and precedent allows dismissal for unverified petitions that are not cured or adequately explained after notice. The applicant failed to cure the defect or provide a compelling reason for its absence within a reasonable time. Therefore, the Board dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerification defectLabor Code section 5902Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10450(e)Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyDismissalWCJ reportLien claimant
References
Case No. ADJ7583327
Regular
May 16, 2013

JORGE GRAIBE vs. CVS CAREMARK, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Jorge Graibe's petition for reconsideration against CVS Caremark and its insurer because the petition was unverified. Labor Code section 5902 requires verification, and despite notice of this defect and a reasonable opportunity to cure it, the petitioner failed to file a verification or provide a compelling explanation for its absence. The Board would have denied the petition on the merits as well, adopting the WCJ's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodySignificant Panel DecisionDefectCureCompelling reasonPrejudice
References
Case No. ADJ8752928
Regular
Feb 23, 2016

BRAD MITCHELL vs. MARILYN GREENBERG LOAN ACCOUNTS, AAA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSURANCE EXCHANGE, administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case is dismissed because the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was unverified, violating Labor Code section 5902 and related regulations. The Applicant was given notice of this defect and a reasonable time to cure it, but failed to do so. Additionally, the petition lacked the required proof of service. If not for the procedural defect, the petition would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionVerification RequirementLabor Code Section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodySignificant Panel DecisionWCJ ReportProof of ServiceLabor Code Section 5905Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ7445855
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

SANTIAGO URENA vs. APPLIED COMPANIES, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed 10 days after the deadline. The petition was also dismissed for failing to meet the statutory verification requirement and the claimant did not cure this defect within a reasonable time. The Board noted that even if timely and verified, the petition would have been denied on the merits.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyUnverifiedJurisdictionalWCJ's Order of Lien DismissalLabor Code Section 5902Verification defectNotice of defectReasonable time
References
Case No. ADJ8948890
Regular
Oct 07, 2025

ANTONIO COLINDRES vs. PRESTIGE MOTORCOACH CORP.; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Lien claimant, Reliable Medical Supply, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order issued on July 24, 2025, which found that the medical treatment services provided to applicant were not reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury. Reliable Medical Supply contended that the issue of medical necessity was not raised on the pretrial conference statement. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, agreeing with the WCJ that the lien claimant failed to prove the medical treatment services were reasonable and necessary, noting the absence of a DWC Form RFA and lack of MTUS citations in Dr. Shah's report.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderPretrial Conference StatementMedical Treatment ServicesReasonable and NecessaryBurden of ProofUtilization ReviewMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleAgreed Medical Evaluator
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. ADJ14015513
Regular
Feb 15, 2023

BRADEN NANEZ vs. 3 STONEDEGGS, INC., TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board rescinded the initial Findings and Order, finding the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely due to defective service. The Board applied the commercial traveler rule, determining the applicant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The claim is not barred by the going and coming rule or intoxication, and the applicant sustained a fractured right femur. Issues of traumatic brain injury and bruised lung are deferred for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOpinion and DecisionFindings and OrderApplicantEmployerAdjustedAdjudication NumberRedding District OfficeInjury Arising Out of and In the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,598 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