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. ADJ4461663 (VNO 0501542)
Regular
Oct 01, 2014

JONATHAN TRASK, vs. BLOOMINGDALE'S, INC., permissibly selfinsured, administered by MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied lien claimant Dr. Silver's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that Bloomingdale's timely paid the negotiated lien settlement by issuing a check within 30 days, and when it was not received, a stop payment was placed and a replacement check issued promptly. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to admit bank records supporting timely payment, despite procedural objections regarding disclosure. Therefore, penalties, sanctions, and costs sought by the lien claimant were denied.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderTimely PaymentPenaltiesSanctionsFeesCostsComputer screen shotsSubstantial Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ2831423
Regular
Jun 21, 2010

REINARD WILSON vs. CINCINNATI BENGALS

This case involves a dispute over permanent disability payments awarded by the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The defendant, Cincinnati Bengals, stopped payments based on an Ohio court order, which was later vacated by a federal court. The WCAB affirmed the original award, finding the defendant's delay in resuming payments unreasonable under Labor Code section 5814, justifying a penalty. However, the WCAB reversed sanctions under section 5813, finding the Ohio litigation, while ultimately unsuccessful, was not frivolous or solely intended to cause delay.

WCABPermanent Disability PaymentsLabor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 5814Unreasonable DelayFrivolous TacticsSanctionsAttorney's FeesOhio Court OrdersInjunction
References
Case No. ADJ3872960
Regular
May 06, 2013

ALONZO WATKINS vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns applicant Alonzo Watkins' petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision denying his claim for unpaid benefits totaling $14,269.10. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding that Watkins failed to provide substantial evidence of non-payment, as the employer presented proof of payment via checks issued over 16 years prior. The WCAB also ruled that Watkins raised the issue of the employer's failure to produce payment records for the first time on appeal, which is impermissible. Furthermore, the WCAB clarified that the record retention requirements for adjusting agencies do not mandate indefinite maintenance of claim files.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryLower ExtremitiesTeacherCompromise and ReleasePayment RecordsProof of PaymentNon-Payment
References
Case No. ADJ8050106 ADJ9468937 ADJ9154032
Regular
Nov 03, 2018

ANTONIO VAZQUEZ vs. CARSON TRAILERS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was taken from an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision issues. The order pertains to multiple cases involving Antonio Vazquez and Carson Trailers. The WCJ's order directing the use of a specific bill reviewer was deemed an evidentiary/procedural matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderEvidentiary OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ 315876 [VNO 0532327] ADJ 145697 [VNO 0530467] ADJ 109547 [VNO 0532326]
Regular
Aug 29, 2008

LOUIS AGUILAR vs. SAWYER PETROLEUM

Defendant's petition for removal of an order requiring payment of attorney's fees is dismissed because the order was final. The petition, even if construed as a petition for reconsideration, would be dismissed for lack of verification.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's FeesDepositionOrder for PaymentWCJFinal OrderInterim OrderDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ9274305
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

SALVADOR REYES vs. AVP&H A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Salvador Reyes's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot, as the underlying issue regarding a specific Qualified Medical Examiner appeared to be resolved. Both petitions were denied as they did not address substantive rights or liabilities. The order reflects standard practice for non-final and moot petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityMootnessQMEOrder to CompelMeet and Confer
References
Case No. ADJ864227 (LBO 350573) ADJ1635667 (LBO 350607)
Regular
Dec 29, 2008

LUIS ECHEVARRIA vs. FALCON WEST, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the trial judge's award of attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5814.5. The Board reasoned that section 5814.5 requires an award of attorney's fees to be "in addition to" increased compensation under section 5814, which was not sought or awarded here. Furthermore, the Board found that any delay in payment was not unreasonable due to a good-faith dispute over the net settlement amount.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLUIS ECHEVARRIAFALCON WESTINC.STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDADJ864227ADJ1635667OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONFindings and Orders
References
Case No. LBO 0384614
Regular
Jan 23, 2008

CAROLINA SALES vs. ROSS STORES, INC. and XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, MJO STAFFING and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order vacating a Compromise and Release (C&R). The Board then granted reconsideration on its own motion to rescind the original C&R approval. This action affirmed the WCJ's decision to vacate the C&R, effectively returning the parties to their pre-settlement status, due to the applicant's expressed confusion and potential lack of full understanding of the agreement's terms.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder VacatingFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900Good CauseUnverified PetitionIndustrial InjuryApplicant's UnderstandingWCJ Discretion
References
Case No. ADJ9602729; ADJ9602730
Regular
Feb 03, 2023

MARIA VALLEJO vs. VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, PERMISSIBLY SELF-INSURED, ADMINISTERED BY YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The applicant sought penalties, interest, and attorney fees for the defendant's delayed payment of a Compromise and Release settlement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior decision that denied penalties. The WCAB found that the defendant's over 80-day delay in payment was unreasonable and that the defendant failed to provide evidence demonstrating timely mailing of the settlement funds. Consequently, the WCAB awarded the applicant penalties, interest, and attorney fees under relevant Labor Code sections.

Compromise and ReleaseOrder Approving C&RPermanent Disability AdvancesPenaltiesInterestAttorney's FeesLabor Code sections 4650(d)58145814.5Unreasonably Delayed Payment
References
Showing 1-10 of 9,255 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