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. 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. ADJ9772360
Regular
Feb 26, 2015

BROCK MACON vs. THE SALVATION ARMY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was taken from a non-final, interlocutory procedural order. The WCAB found that the order did not determine any substantive rights or liabilities, nor a threshold issue fundamental to the claim. Treating the petition as one for removal, the WCAB denied it as removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated. Therefore, the applicant's attempt to challenge the intermediate decision was unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ11568028
Regular
Mar 03, 2020

STEPHANIE MAHONEY vs. YMCA; TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE, administered by SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final, interlocutory order regarding venue. The WCAB reiterated that reconsideration is only proper for final orders that determine substantive rights or threshold issues. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate such an extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's decision on venue was deemed an intermediate procedural ruling, not subject to appeal at this stage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ10948281
Regular
Mar 06, 2023

HELODORO ZAMORA PEREZ vs. RMT CONTRACTING, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Helodoro Zamora Perez against RMT Contracting, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was not timely filed. The WCAB explained that a decision resolving a "threshold" issue is a final order, and any challenges must be made through a timely petition for reconsideration. Since the WCJ's decision addressed a threshold issue, it was a final order subject to timely reconsideration. Furthermore, the WCAB stated that even if the petition had been timely, it would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationThreshold IssueFinal DecisionInterlocutory IssuesRemoval StandardExtraordinary RemedySignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdequate RemedyWCAB
References
Case No. ADJ10992611
Regular
Aug 07, 2018

MARIA LOPEZ vs. CAR CARE, INC.; REPUBLIC INDEMNITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order addressing an evidentiary issue. The WCAB found that the order did not determine any substantive rights or liabilities nor a threshold issue. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB concluded that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalfinal ordersubstantive rightliabilitythreshold issueinterlocutory proceduralevidentiary issueextraordinary remedy
References
Case No. ADJ10607792
Regular
Sep 30, 2019

DANAE MARTINEZ vs. TRUE LEAF FARMS/PACIFIC RISK MANAGEMENT, PSI, administered by PACIFIC CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. While the WCJ's initial order addressed a threshold issue (injury AOE/COE), the applicant's petition only challenged interlocutory issues regarding QME panels. The WCAB treated this as a request for removal, which is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted. Because the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration remains an adequate remedy for future interlocutory issues, the petition was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationReport of Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgethreshold issuefinal decisioninjury arising out of and in the course of employmentAOE/COEinterlocutory issuesremoval standardqualified medical evaluator
References
Case No. ADJ10296202, ADJ10296203
Regular
Jan 29, 2020

ANDRIA STREETER vs. GOODWILL SERVING THE PEOPLE OF SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns defendant's petition for reconsideration or removal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied the petition, finding the decision contained both a threshold issue (injury AOE/COE) making it final for reconsideration, and an interlocutory issue (treatment outside the medical provider network). Because the petition primarily challenged the interlocutory issue, it was evaluated under the more stringent removal standard. The Board found no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalJoint Findings of FactInjury AOE/COEThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueMedical Provider NetworkSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Showing 1-10 of 4,991 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