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. ADJ1739967
Regular
Feb 08, 2012

JOHN ANDERSON vs. ECO BUILDING SYSTEMS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Joint Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, adopting the Administrative Law Judge's report and finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. Therefore, the applicant's petitions were unsuccessful.

ADJ1739967SDO 0296218Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoint PetitionWCABLab. Code§ 5900§ 5903Cal. Code Regs.
References
0
Case No. ADJ5776124
Regular
May 12, 2011

LESLEY KESSER vs. SANTA ROSA SCHOOL DISTRICT, REDWOOD EMPIRE SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's minute orders concerning discovery closure were not final orders. Treating the petition as a Petition for Removal, the WCAB denied it, finding the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's attempt to reopen discovery and depose a PQME was thus unsuccessful. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision on discovery limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinute OrdersDeclaration of ReadinessClosure of DiscoveryPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerPQMELabor CodeDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. POM 294416
Regular
Aug 20, 2007

ENOC (EROC) VARGAS vs. NWB BUILDING CONTRACTORS, LWP CLAIMS SOLUTIONS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order from which it appealed was interlocutory and not a final order, and because the petition was unverified. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as the WCJ correctly noted a lack of admissible evidence to support the applicant's claims for temporary disability and medical treatment. Therefore, the applicant's procedural challenges to the WCJ's decision to take the matter off calendar were unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff CalendarExpedited HearingTemporary DisabilityMedical TreatmentDue ProcessIrreparable HarmFinal Order
References
13
Case No. ADJ3321482 (SAC 0347549) ADJ8009553 ADJ9161073
Regular
Mar 25, 2016

MARY LOU SMITH vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The defendant sought to overturn a Minute Order that merely continued the case to a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC), arguing it would cause prejudice. The WCAB found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying removal, and a continuance of a non-final order is not grounds for reconsideration. Therefore, the WCAB admonished the defendant for delaying proceedings with these unsuccessful petitions.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMinute OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceDismissedDeniedSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmFinal OrderNon-final Order
References
6
Case No. ADJ9076607
Regular
Nov 15, 2018

VALERIE COLES vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Valerie Coles, against the County of Alameda. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, ruling that the WCJ's decision 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, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. Therefore, the applicant's attempts to challenge the interim decision through these procedural avenues were unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
6
Case No. ADJ9352144
Regular
Nov 21, 2014

JORGE YANEZ ALCALA vs. JOSMAR PACKING, WILLIAMSBURG NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the appealed order denying a change of venue was not a final order, and therefore not subject to reconsideration. The WCAB also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify this extraordinary remedy. The Board admonished defense counsel for filing a petition from a clearly non-final order, warning of potential sanctions for abuse of the system. Consequently, the defendant's attempts to alter the venue from Marina Del Rey were unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.6Industrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjuryHip InjuryShoulder Injury
References
11
Case No. ADJ9092557, ADJ9862530
Regular
Oct 12, 2015

CONNIE STOTT vs. THE KROGER COMPANY DBA FOOD 4 LESS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Kroger's petition concerning case ADJ9092557, which was already resolved. Regarding case ADJ9862530, the WCAB dismissed Kroger's petition for reconsideration, ruling that the order denying their venue change request was not a final order. Furthermore, the WCAB denied Kroger's petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify this extraordinary remedy. Therefore, Kroger's attempt to move the venue of case ADJ9862530 from Long Beach to Riverside was unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition to Change VenueInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightsIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceWCJ Report
References
5
Case No. ADJ7419891
Regular
Apr 08, 2016

LUCELY ESTRADA vs. CHARLIE ROCKET, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order, as it addressed only an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary issue. Furthermore, the Board denied the Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report was adopted and incorporated to support these decisions. Therefore, the applicant's attempts to appeal the intermediate ruling were unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJfinal ordersubstantive rightliabilitythreshold issueinterlocutoryprocedural
References
6
Case No. ADJ8628783, ADJ7939627
Regular
Nov 30, 2017

JOSE MANUEL MORA vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is ultimately issued. This order signifies that the applicant's attempt to appeal an intermediate procedural ruling has been unsuccessful.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ7669443 ADJ7739963
Regular
Jun 03, 2015

CARLOS MARTINEZ vs. SA RECYCLING CORPORATION, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, which the Board adopted, articulated the reasoning for these dismissals and denials. Therefore, the applicant's attempt to appeal an interim ruling was unsuccessful on both procedural grounds.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 14,124 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