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. ADJ1952983
Regular
Mar 15, 2018

JUAN RIVERA vs. IMPORT EXPORT CACTUS, STATE COMPENSAITON INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a prior ruling that deemed them to have waived objections to a specific invoice from lien claimant Scandoc Imaging. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding that the defendant's objection, if any, was untimely, having been filed approximately four years after the invoice was submitted. California regulations require objections to medical-legal billings within 60 days to avoid waiver. Therefore, the defendant waived their objections to the reasonableness of the services and charges for invoice #234447-3.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderslien claimantinvoice objectionwaiver of objectionreasonableness of servicesLabor Code section 4622Scandoc ImagingImport Export Cactus
References
Case No. ADJ9757215
Regular
Feb 16, 2017

CHRISTOPHER COLLINS vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC., STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the applicant, Christopher Collins, challenging Formal Rating Instructions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Removal, clarifying that it is not the proper procedural vehicle for objecting to rating instructions. The WCAB noted that pursuant to Rule 10602, a timely objection must be made directly to the Workers' Compensation Judge. Therefore, the WCAB is remanding the matter to the trial level to have the Petition for Removal treated as a timely objection.

Petition for RemovalFormal Rating InstructionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJObjectionTrial LevelDismissedTimelyRule 10602
References
Case No. ADJ6860509
Regular
Aug 16, 2012

JESUS HERNANDEZ vs. PLS FINANCIAL SERVICES, CHARTIS

This case concerns a lien claimant, Syndicated Diagnostic Imaging, whose lien was dismissed by the WCJ for failing to appear at a lien conference and not filing a timely objection to a notice of intent to dismiss. The lien claimant argued its representative appeared, and it filed a timely objection, but the Board found the objection was filed late and lacked proof of service or filing. The Board affirmed the dismissal because the lien claimant failed to demonstrate good cause for its absence or timely object to the dismissal notice.

Lien claimantSyndicated Diagnostic ImagingPetition for ReconsiderationOrder DenyingWCJlien conferencenotice of intention to dismissgood causeobjectionhearing representative
References
Case No. ADJ9571499
Regular
Dec 19, 2017

ANNABELLE JAVIER vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration for lien claimant Med-Legal LLC. The Board found that the defendant's objection to Med-Legal's photocopying charges, while timely, failed to include required information regarding the lien claimant's right to appeal. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original order disallowing the lien and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings. This means the initial denial of liability for the lien claimant's services is set aside due to the deficient objection notice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantExplanation of Review (EOR)Medical-legal expensesLabor CodeRule 9794Objection to denialTimely objectionReconsiderationRescind
References
Case No. ADJ7641403
Regular
Apr 26, 2011

MARU ARAGAW vs. SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

Applicant Maru Aragaw sought to remove an order changing venue from San Francisco to Stockton for her workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition. The defendant's objection to the initial San Francisco venue was timely, as it was filed within 30 days of receiving notice of the case number and venue. Therefore, the WCJ correctly ordered the venue changed to Stockton, where the applicant resides.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.6WCJSan Francisco district officeStockton district officeApplication for Adjudication of Claimvenue siteobjection to venueRule 10410
References
Case No. ADJ8595988
Regular
Oct 25, 2016

ERIC RUIZ vs. JCT COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board rescinded a prior order disallowing a lien for medical-legal photocopy services. The Board determined the judge must first consider if the defendant timely objected to the expenses per Labor Code section 4622. If the objection was untimely, the lien claimant is not barred from collection. If the objection was timely, the judge must then evaluate the reasonableness and necessity of the services in light of discovery policies. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMed-Legal Photocopylien disallowedsubpoena duces tecummedical-legal expensesLabor Code section 4622contested claimobjection timelyexplanation of reviewOtis v. City of Los Angeles
References
Case No. ADJ9007915
Regular
May 17, 2016

CLEMENTE BARRANCA vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING dba JULIAN & SONS, TOWER INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petitions for reconsideration, vacating the initial dismissal order and rescinding the subsequent dismissal order. This was because the first dismissal order was issued before the deadline for filing an objection, rendering it void. Furthermore, the Board found that the lien claimant had timely filed an objection to the Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which the trial judge seemingly did not consider before issuing the second dismissal. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including the consideration of the timely objection and potential sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienExcusable NeglectCode of Civil Procedure section 473WCAB Rule 10842(c)WCAB Rule 10561Labor Code section 5813
References
Case No. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203)
Regular
Mar 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a monetary sanction proposed against attorney Michael Linn by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Linn objected to the sanction, claiming he was denied due process due to a discrepancy in the service date of the WCAB's Notice of Intention. While the Notice stated a February 13, 2009 service date, Linn's evidence indicated actual service on February 17, 2009. Despite this, the WCAB acknowledges the discrepancy but notes Linn's objection was timely based on the actual service date. Consequently, the WCAB grants Linn an additional five days to file further objections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMonetary SanctionsMichael LinnEsq.Notice of IntentionGood CauseDue ProcessRequisite NoticeObjectionsTimely Response
References
Case No. ADJ758842 (VNO 0559214)
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

JOHN PATCHETT vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, affirming the WCJ's decision to vacate the submission. This action was based on the DEU evaluator's testimony, which revealed deficiencies in the AMEs' reports concerning the AMA Guides. The Board found the applicant waived any objection to this testimony by failing to object at trial, and that the evaluator's expert opinion was permissible per *Blackledge v. Bank of America*. Defendant's objection, though not styled as a motion to strike, sufficiently raised the issues leading to the vacation of the rating.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDEU evaluatorAMA Guidesagreed medical evaluators (AMEs)rating instructionssubstantial evidenceobjective factors of disabilitywhole person impairmentformal rating
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,343 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