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. ADJ9173159
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

GARY COTTLE vs. TONY'S EXPRESS, CALIFORNIA TRUCKERS' SAFETY ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior administrative law judge's (WCJ) order. This order addressed penalties for unreasonable delay in payment and sanctions for bad faith litigation. Crucially, the WCAB has not received a petition for reconsideration from defendant CTSA and requires them to submit a copy of their petition and proof of timely filing within 20 days. Failure to comply will result in the WCAB proceeding with only the applicant's petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5814Unreasonable DelayCompensation PaymentLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith LitigationLienTimely FiledProof of Service
References
0
Case No. ADJ4261717 (FRE 0227914), ADJ2564944 (FRE 0224116)
Regular
Jan 19, 2017

Ann Swengel vs. CAMBRIDGE; AON CORPORATION, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, reversing the prior order that mandated a gym membership. The Board found that because the defendant timely submitted the request for authorization (RFA) to Utilization Review (UR), the UR's denial is not subject to review by the Board, nor is it subject to Independent Medical Review (IMR) if not timely appealed. Consequently, the applicant's petition for reconsideration and for penalties was denied. The Board emphasized that their jurisdiction regarding UR determinations is limited to timeliness.

Utilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderPrimary Treating PhysicianRequest for AuthorizationAdministrative Director's DeterminationMedical Treatment Utilization ScheduleLabor Code Section 5814.5Stipulations with Request for Award
References
5
Case No. ADJ10098723
Regular
Dec 15, 2017

CARL GAITHER vs. CALIFORNIA RESOURCES CORPORATION, STAR INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed more than 25 days after the original award, violating jurisdictional time limits. Conversely, the defendant's petition for reconsideration was granted to allow the Board further opportunity to review the factual and legal issues. This case turns on a procedural technicality regarding timely filing. The WCAB will now review the merits of the defendant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLab. CodeCal. Code Regs.jurisdictionaluntimely petitiondismissalgrantDecision After Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. ADJ7160971
Regular
Jan 12, 2015

JACINTO CATILLO vs. SANTA CLARITA INTERIORS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of the defendant's petition to review an arbitrator's award finding the applicant sustained a lumbar spine injury. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was potentially untimely and filed with the incorrect district office for this ADR carve-out case. The WCAB will issue a notice of intention to dismiss unless the defendant provides proof of timely filing with the correct office. The defendant has 15 days to submit documentation demonstrating the petition was timely filed.

Petition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's Findings and AwardJourneyman CarpenterLumbar SpinePermanent DisabilityApportionmentTemporary Total Disability IndemnityArbitrator's Report and RecommendationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemADR carve-out case
References
2
Case No. ADJ7902535
Regular
Dec 02, 2013

MARIA SANCHEZ vs. TARGET CORPORATION

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied California Imaging Solutions' petition for reconsideration. The Board also dismissed AR Med Management's petition for reconsideration on behalf of Dr. Saghafi and Spectrum Medical Supply because it was not timely filed. Even if timely, the AR Med Management petition would have been denied on its merits. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge in both instances.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAR Med ManagementCalifornia Imaging SolutionsWCJ Reporttimely-filedmeritsSpectrum Medical SupplyDr. SaghafiTarget Corporation
References
0
Case No. ADJ9876334
Regular
Dec 12, 2017

ERIC DOZIER vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Kaiser Permanente's petition for reconsideration because the order they sought to appeal was not a final order. They also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board further clarified that the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely due to a defective service designation on the original Order Approving Compromise and Release. Finally, the WCJ acted within their authority to rescind the Order Approving Compromise and Release after a timely reconsideration petition was filed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOACRDefective Service
References
6
Case No. ADJ6466818
Regular
Apr 25, 2017

Sean Nguyen vs. Los Angeles Times, Zurich American Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because the original order dismissing the lien and imposing sanctions was improperly served on a sanctioned individual. This defective service meant the petition, filed 28 days after the order, was deemed timely as the date of actual receipt was unknown. The Board rescinded the original order and returned the matter for further proceedings. A new decision at the trial level will allow any aggrieved party to properly seek reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OrderLien ClaimantTed DurdenSanctionsCostsFailure to AppearDefective ServiceNotice of Intention
References
7
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
4
Case No. ADJ2263363 (SAC 0291821) ADJ2654728 (SAC 0291246)
Regular
Dec 05, 2008

LEROY ARMSTRONG vs. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SLIPFORM CONCRETE, BROADSPIRE, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Legion Insurance, State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF), Fireman's Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed CIGA's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's deferral of CIGA's requested issues was not a final order, and CIGA was not aggrieved. The Board also denied CIGA's petition for removal, finding no extraordinary circumstances. Finally, the Board denied SCIF's petition for reconsideration, agreeing with the WCJ's determination that the applicant's claim against Environmental Construction was timely.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASCIFReconsiderationRemovalPetitionFinal OrderStatute of LimitationsIndustrial InjuryDeferred Issue
References
7
Case No. ADJ2255696 (VNO 0497652)
Regular
May 15, 2009

TATIANA ZAKIANS vs. BLOOMINGDALES

Lien claimant Sam Alaiti, M.D., sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order reducing his lien by over $80\%$. The WCJ recommended granting reconsideration, noting procedural issues with the petition's timely attention by the judge. The Appeals Board found the petition timely filed, but it did not come to their attention until after the statutory reconsideration period had passed. Citing due process principles, the Board held the reconsideration period begins upon their actual notice. Therefore, the Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Reducing LienOrder to Pay Lienworkers' compensation administrative law judgeEAMSFileNetstatutory time periodAppeals Boarddue process
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 21,070 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