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. ADJ1169918 (VNO 0532601)
Regular
Apr 23, 2015

TERESA SALAZAR vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Teresa Salazar's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on April 1, 2015, which was more than the 25-day jurisdictional deadline following the WCJ's December 30, 2014 decision. The WCAB lacks authority to consider petitions filed outside this statutory period. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and had it been timely, it would have been denied on the merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportJurisdictional Time LimitService by MailExtension of TimePosting vs. FilingLegal Precedent
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ7626709
Regular
Mar 07, 2014

JUDY WANG vs. CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns Judy Wang's workers' compensation claim against Cedars Sinai Medical Center. The Appeals Board dismissed Wang's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. Specifically, the petition was filed more than 20 days after the WCJ's decision, and personal service of the decision negated any mailing extension. The Board noted that even if timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely PetitionLabor Code section 5903Jurisdictional Time LimitAppeals BoardWCJPersonal ServiceMailing ExtensionWCAB Rule 10507Dismissal
References
Case No. ADJ6943627
Regular
Feb 11, 2013

BILL MCINNES vs. VICENTE FOODS, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves untimely petitions for reconsideration filed by the applicant, Bill McInnes. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed these petitions because they were filed more than twenty days after the WCJ's decision, with no mailing extension applicable due to personal service. Even if timely, the petitions would have been denied on the merits based on the WCJ's report. Additionally, the applicant's attorney's letter, attempting to serve as a reconsideration petition, was also dismissed as both untimely and insufficient.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Mailing ExtensionCode of Civil Procedure Section 1013WCAB Rule 10507Jurisdictional Time LimitPersonal ServiceStrom v. WCABSkeletal Petition
References
Case No. ADJ6923711
Regular
May 02, 2013

OSCAR VIZCARRA vs. APPLIED RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Oscar Vizcarra's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on March 28, 2013, which was more than twenty days after the WCJ's decision was personally served on February 28, 2013. Because the decision was personally served, no mailing extension applied. The WCAB correctly applied Labor Code section 5903, noting that filing a petition for reconsideration outside the jurisdictional time limit mandates dismissal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Jurisdictional Time LimitPersonally ServedMailing ExtensionCode of Civil Procedure Section 1013WCAB Rule 10507Date of Receipt
References
Case No. ADJ8266893
Regular
May 21, 2013

ALI JIRDE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - DISTRICT 6, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on March 29, 2013, more than 20 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was personally served on March 6, 2013. As the decision was personally served, the five-day mailing extension under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 did not apply. The WCAB noted that timely filing is jurisdictional and therefore lacked the power to grant the untimely petition. However, defendants retain the option to file a Petition to Reopen.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitPersonal ServiceMailing ExtensionLabor Code Section 5903WCAB Rule 10507Petition to ReopenWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ's Report and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ3687516 (OXN 0126293)
Regular
Dec 22, 2011

RAMONA ANAYA, JUAN JOSE GONZALEZ, JESUS CERVANTES, JULIE ANN CABEZA, JULY SUESUE vs. PORT HUENEME UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, J. M. SMUCKERS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, AMERICA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC., GHL ENTERPRISES, CIGA, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., PAULA INSURANCE COMPANY, MARY HEALTH OF THE SICK, REDISE INSURANCE, CRAWFY AND COMPANY, CITY OF LONG BEACH

Attorney M. Francesca Hannan sought reconsideration and disqualification of judges, alleging a conspiracy to dismiss her clients' liens and impose sanctions. The Board consolidated seven cases, designating *Anaya* as the master file, and ordered Hannan to provide a detailed factual response supporting her claims. Hannan requested a 120-day extension to file due to issues with mail delivery and requested a waiver for a lien trial transcript cost. The Board granted a 60-day extension for the response, but denied the waiver for the transcript cost, citing lack of justification and untimeliness of the bias allegation regarding the transcript.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDisqualification petitionAdministrative Law JudgeBias allegationsExtension of timeVerified responseLien trial transcriptSanctionsAttorney's feesConsolidation of cases
References
Case No. ADJ7284840
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

Sean Nguyen vs. Los Angeles Times, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sean Nguyen's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found that Nguyen sustained only a back laceration in a 1989 injury, with treatment not necessary after December 8, 1989. The judge found the applicant's subsequent claims of extensive injuries, including neck and back pain, were not supported by credible medical evidence from the time of the incident. The petition was also denied for failing to specify the statutory basis or detail the grounds for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportLabor Code Section 5903Labor Code Section 5902Order Denying PetitionSEAN NGUYENLOS ANGELES TIMESESISADJ7284840
References
Case No. ADJ3162900 (LAO 0866179)
Regular
Aug 23, 2012

ROBERTO GOMEZ vs. GREIF BROTHERS CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns a lien claimant's request for reconsideration of a disallowed lien due to alleged due process violations regarding witness testimony. The Appeals Board initially ordered responses from attorney Hannan and hearing representative Surujnarain regarding these allegations. While Hannan received an extension, Surujnarain's late joinder to the extension request, citing a need for legal counsel due to his non-attorney status, was ultimately granted. Surujnarain now has until September 7, 2012, to file his verified response, with no further extensions to be granted absent a compelling showing of good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OrderLien ClaimantDue ProcessWitness TestimonySanctionsPetition for Extension of TimeVerified ResponsePenalty of Perjury
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,762 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