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. ADJ7255629, ADJ7258202
Regular
Apr 23, 2013

ROMALDA MERCADO vs. CM LAUNDRY, LLC, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES for CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a July 18, 2012 decision. The dismissal is based on the petitioner's withdrawal of the petition. Furthermore, the Board notes that the petition was likely untimely and defective, as indicated in the administrative law judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissing PetitionUntimely PetitionDefective PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge's ReportCase NumbersApplicantDefendantsWithdrawal of Petition
References
Case No. ADJ3399937 (VNO 0423516 ADJ8997142 ADJ10559387 ADJ7656828
Regular
Feb 27, 2019

DAVE ZADA vs. ALPRO MILLWORKING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Dave Zada's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition untimely, successive, and skeletal, failing to meet procedural requirements for reconsideration. Zada also did not demonstrate how he was aggrieved by the prior WCAB decision. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPro PerSuccessive PetitionUntimely PetitionSkeletal PetitionAggrieved PartyJurisdictional Time LimitVerified PleadingsMaterial EvidenceProof of Service
References
Case No. ADJ6705977 ADJ6880053
Regular
Jun 13, 2014

TERRI SIEGEL vs. WALGREENS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's untimely petition for removal, finding it lacked merit and was frivolous. The Board noted the petition was filed months after the subject orders, violating the 20-day filing deadline. Additionally, the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be inadequate. Consequently, the Board intends to impose sanctions of up to $1,000 on the defendant for filing a baseless petition.

Petition for RemovalUntimely PetitionOrder Vacating SubmissionOrder Taking Off CalendarReport and RecommendationSanctionsFrivolous PetitionLabor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Significant Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ3393289 (LAO0594595)
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

BERNARD WILLIAM PONZI vs. LOS ANGELES MISSIONARY SOCIETY, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's request to file a supplemental petition for reconsideration but dismissed the original petition. The original petition was untimely, unverified, and skeletal, failing to meet procedural requirements for seeking reconsideration of prior orders. As no final order has issued since September 8, 1997, the applicant was not deemed aggrieved by a final decision. The WCAB recommended the applicant contact the Information and Assistance Officer for case status inquiries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardLien OrderPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionSkeletal PetitionAggrieved PartyLabor Code Section 5900
References
Case No. ADJ6501139
Regular
Mar 09, 2010

AARON GOMEZ vs. SUNWOOD DOORS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, which argued that Pacific Employers' Insurance Company, the terminal carrier, was a necessary party. The Board adopted the presiding judge's report, finding no basis for removal. Additionally, the applicant's petition for removal was dismissed as untimely. The case will proceed to trial without the joined carrier.

Petition for RemovalContinuous Trauma ClaimTerminal CarrierDue Process RightsPetition for Leave to File Supplemental PetitionApplicant's AnswerPetition for SanctionsPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOrder for TrialJoinder of Party
References
Case No. LAO 860448, LAO 860449
Regular
Mar 07, 2008

DAVID MORRIS vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Dr. Khalid Ahmed's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed after the statutory deadline. The petition was also deemed insufficient due to its skeletal nature, lack of verification, and failure to meet regulatory requirements for supporting arguments with references to the record and law. Therefore, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely and procedurally deficient petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionSkeletal PetitionUntimely PetitionLabor Code section 10609Labor Code section 4616Labor Code section 5902Labor Code section 5903
References
Case No. ADJ11722162; ADJ12080963
Regular
Jun 13, 2025

SHAHROOZ BIGONAH vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA IHSS, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES

Applicant Shahrooz Bigonah sought reconsideration of an Opinion and Order issued by the Appeals Board on October 14, 2024, which had dismissed his prior petition as untimely, successive, and duplicative. The current petition, filed on April 3, 2025, challenging an April 9, 2024 Findings and Order, was also determined to be untimely by the Appeals Board, with a filing deadline of November 8, 2024. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition and cautioned the applicant regarding the potential for vexatious litigant proceedings due to repetitive, unmeritorious filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationuntimely petitionsuccessive petitionduplicative petitionFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Labor Code section 5909transmission to Appeals BoardElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)
References
Case No. ADJ7785865
Regular

FABIOLA MARTINEZ vs. PRIORITY BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., TRAVELERS

The defendant sought removal of the WCJ's order rescinding a Compromise and Release (C&R), arguing the applicant's petition to set aside was untimely. The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition due to improper service. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter for a hearing on the applicant's petition to set aside the C&R. This decision acknowledges the applicant's petition was indeed untimely, but asserts the Board's authority to review the C&R for good cause under Labor Code section 5803.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition to Set Asideuntimely petitionPro Per ApplicantWCJremoval on Appeals Board motionGood CauseLabor Code Section 5803
References
Case No. ADJ2948353 (SAL 0116403) ADJ803362 (SAL 0116404) ADJ2320380 (SAL 0116407)
Regular
May 04, 2009

BRIAN CARRASCO vs. CLARK PEST CONTROL, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The applicant filed a petition alleging bias by the WCJ based on 21 instances of alleged misconduct. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for removal, finding it untimely and unverified, as the applicant did not claim to be aggrieved by the last order and the petition was filed beyond the 20-day limit. Furthermore, the Board denied the disqualification petition because it was not supported by a verified affidavit and the judge in question was not currently assigned to the cases for trial. These procedural deficiencies led to the dismissal of the removal petition and denial of the disqualification petition.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ Steven D. TuanBias AllegationsUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionWCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10452Labor Code Section 5310
References
Showing 1-10 of 13,572 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