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. ADJ8941894 MF, ADJ8941878, ADJ9832104
Regular
Aug 06, 2018

SHANITA BUNDLEY vs. G2 SECURE STAFF, LLC, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as reconsideration is the proper remedy for a final order. The Petition for Reconsideration was denied because it failed to specify grounds for review, cite the record with specificity, or fairly state all material evidence as required by statute and board rules. Consequently, the petition was deemed insufficient and unsupported.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportfinal ordersubstantive rightthreshold issueLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board Rulesskeletal petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ9211017
Regular
Mar 28, 2017

JOSE MENDOZA vs. KINGSLEY COMPANIES; SAMSUNG FIRE AND MARINE c/o BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the denial of a credit for benefits paid. The WCAB found that the administrative law judge's decision not to grant the credit was within their discretion and not an abuse of discretion, considering the lack of wrongdoing by the applicant. The applicant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as skeletal and unsupported by specific references to the record and legal principles, as required by statute and board rules. Therefore, the WCAB upheld the original denial of the credit and dismissed the applicant's petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionDismissing PetitionLabor Code section 4909CreditDiscretionary AuthorityEquitable PrinciplesSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rules
References
10
Case No. ADJ1977669 (LAO 0802562)
Regular
Nov 09, 2020

MYRA RYAN vs. CARLSON MESSER & TURNER, LLP, LUMBERMENS MUTUAL, in liquidation, administered by TRISTAR on behalf of CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration or removal filed by lien claimant David Silver, M.D. and his representative, Dan Escamilla. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the WCJ's prior decisions on injury AOE/COE and costs/sanctions were final. The Board also admonished the petitioners for bad faith actions, citing their legally unsupportable and frivolous arguments regarding the medical fee schedule. This conduct constitutes a pattern, and further similar actions may result in sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ reportfinal ordersubstantive right or liabilitythreshold issueinjury arising out of and occurring in the course of employmentAOE/COElien claimant
References
0
Case No. ADJ15495436
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

Calvin Grigsby vs. Grigsby and Associates, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered two petitions from the applicant, Calvin Grigsby: a December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal, and a December 24, 2024 Petition for Removal. The Board dismissed the reconsideration aspect of the December 9th petition as it pertained to non-final orders and denied removal, finding no demonstration of irreparable harm. The subsequent December 24th petition was also dismissed as it challenged the same December 4, 2024 orders. The Board also noted the applicant's failure to comply with page limits for the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNonfinal OrdersLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental Pleadings
References
15
Case No. ADJ9137596
Regular
Sep 13, 2018

AMANDA GOMEZ vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, THE HARTFORD

The Board granted reconsideration to amend the temporary disability dates in the original Findings and Award, but otherwise affirmed the decision. The Board denied the defendant's petition for disqualification of the WCJ as untimely and unsupported by factual allegations. The Board found the applicant's testimony and Dr. Anderson's medical reports constituted substantial evidence of industrial injury and causation. The defendant was admonished for disrespectful language used in its petition.

AOECOEWCJ credibility determinationsubstantial evidenceprimary treating physicianPQMEdisqualification petitiontimely filingjudicial biasundisputed factscredible testimony
References
15
Case No. ADJ8611839
Regular
Sep 07, 2016

NATALIE CLAYTON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR PAROLE & COMMUNITY SERVICES, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

This case addresses a claim for industrial colon cancer and hypertension. The Appeals Board denied the Department of Justice's petition for reconsideration, finding their arguments regarding latency periods were unsupported. However, the Board granted the CDCR's petition, overturning the prior finding of industrial causation for colon cancer against the CDCR. This was based on the conclusion that the applicant did not meet her burden of proof for CDCR employment absent the statutory presumption.

Labor Code 3212.1cumulative traumacolon cancerhypertensionpolice officerspecial agentparole officerSan Diego Police DepartmentDepartment of JusticeDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation
References
4
Case No. ADJ7768905
Regular
Sep 13, 2016

TRACEY LOMBARDI vs. SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition, which sought disqualification of the administrative law judge, removal, and reconsideration. The disqualification petition was denied as untimely, filed after the swearing of the first witness. The removal petition failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Finally, the reconsideration petition was dismissed because it did not seek review of a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5311Appeals Board Rule 10452Untimely PetitionExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ3808038 (LAO 0819022)
Regular
Feb 11, 2010

NICOLAS F. BENINKOFF (Deceased), LORENA BENINKOFF (Widow) vs. DARCO METAL SURFACING, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied petitions for removal and reconsideration from lien claimants and the defendant, and denied the applicant's reconsideration petition. Lien claimants Kan and Ace's petition for removal was denied as they failed to show substantial prejudice, and their reconsideration petition was dismissed as the prior order was not final. The applicant's reconsideration petition was denied because her claim for home healthcare services was deemed an untimely lien claim under Labor Code section 4903.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationLien ClaimantsUntimely LienLabor Code section 4903.5Labor Code section 5405Home Healthcare ServicesMedical TreatmentTransportation Expenses
References
5
Case No. ADJ10175718
Regular
Nov 13, 2018

MARJORIE MARLOW vs. AT&T

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed AT&T's Petition for Reconsideration because it was a "skeletal" filing. The petition failed to specifically detail the grounds for reconsideration, cite relevant evidence from the record, or explain how the findings were unsupported. The Board emphasized that petitions must comply with Labor Code section 5902 and Appeals Board Rules 10842, 10846, and 10852. Without these specific details, a petition is subject to dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesRule 10842Rule 10846Rule 10852Specific References to RecordGrounds for ReconsiderationMaterial Evidence
References
6
Case No. SBR 0271963; SBR 0247442; SBR 0247444; SBR 0247445; VNO 0299465; LAO 0761513; LAO 0761514; LAO 0761515; LAO 0761516; LAO 0761517; LAO 0761518; LAO 0761519; LAO 0761520; LAO 0761521; LAO 0761522; LAO 0761523; LAO 0761524; LAO 0761525; LAO 0761526; LAO 0761527; LAO 0761528; LAO 0761529; LAO 0761530
Regular
Dec 10, 2007

EDAR Y. ROGLER vs. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. JOHNSON; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed an attorney's petition seeking to remove or disqualify Judge Kacey Joseph Keating from presiding over her cases. The WCAB found the petition for removal procedurally improper and the petition for automatic reassignment untimely, as prior hearings involving the judge had occurred. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the disqualification petition because the applicant failed to provide legally sufficient grounds or a required affidavit.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for Automatic ReassignmentPetition for DisqualificationWCJLabor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452Code of Civil Procedure Section 641Attorney Applicant
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 14,194 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