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. ADJ8620013, ADJ10761228
Regular
Jun 08, 2017

MARK EBERWEIN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order. The WCAB further denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial. The WCJ's decision addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not a substantive right or threshold issue. Therefore, neither reconsideration nor removal was deemed appropriate at this stage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ10652805
Regular
Nov 16, 2018

JESUS ARELLANO vs. RJP FRAMING, INC.; REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was taken from a non-final interlocutory order. The order at issue, which closed discovery, did not determine substantive rights, liabilities, or a threshold issue fundamental to the claim. Therefore, it was not a final order as required for reconsideration under Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903. The Board also found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if the petition were treated as a request for removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueRemoval
References
Case No. ADJ10648626
Regular
Apr 27, 2018

LUBIA CASTANEDA vs. ELITE SUBLIMATION, INC., REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed Lubia Castaneda's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's decision on venue was an interlocutory procedural issue, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, it was not a proper subject for reconsideration. The petition for removal was also denied as Castaneda failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ9 131383
Regular
Jul 07, 2017

MARTIN HEREDIA vs. CERTIFIED AVIATION SERVICES, PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's decision addressed an intermediate procedural issue, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. The petition for removal was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning in both instances. This ruling clarifies that only final orders are subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ10069954
Regular
Dec 21, 2015

MAURO PEREZ vs. FAMILY TREE SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was based on an interlocutory order that did not determine substantive rights or a threshold issue. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would likely be an adequate remedy later. The defendants' procedural objection regarding venue was resolved by their filing of a verified answer.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ7686404
Regular
Jul 28, 2016

ALBERTO CORREA LOPEZ vs. GATANAGA NURSERY; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition for removal were dismissed and denied, respectively.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ9619516
Regular
Feb 19, 2015

RUBICELIA RUIZ DE GOMEZ vs. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES; TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Rubicelia Ruiz de Gomez's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order. The WCJ's decision addressed only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed, and the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034) ADJ1776170 (MON 0224335)
Regular
Feb 10, 2016

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT FOOD SERVICES, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration and removal that was dismissed and denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board found that the WCJ's decision addressed only an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary issue, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed as premature. The petition for removal was also denied, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ9217031
Regular
Sep 15, 2015

OFELIA GONZALEZ vs. RANCHO HARVEST, TWIN CITIES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed applicant Ofelia Gonzalez's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied her petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration would not adequately address. The WCJ's decision addressed only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and removal were dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,500 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