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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Case No. ADJ3011154 (SAC 0309784) ADJ3631113 (SAC 0309785)
Regular
Aug 28, 2014

CHRISTOPHER TORRES vs. CONTRA COSTA SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a dismissal of an applicant's Independent Medical Review (IMR) appeal, which was initially dismissed for lack of verification. While the applicant's IMR appeal did not meet the statutory requirement for verification under Labor Code section 4610.6(h), the WCAB recognized the evolving nature of this requirement and the public policy favoring disposition on the merits. The case was returned to the trial level, allowing the applicant twenty days to cure the verification defect, after which the WCJ will address the substance of the appeal or dismiss it if the defect remains uncorrected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewUtilization ReviewVerified AppealLabor Code Section 4610.6(h)Petition for ReconsiderationRule 10450(e)Declaration of Readiness to ProceedWCJSignificant Panel Decision
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garden State Anesthesia Associates, PA v. Progressive Casualty Insurance

Garden State Anesthesia Associates (GSAA) sued Progressive Casualty Insurance Company for unpaid first-party no-fault benefits after providing services to Angela Gowan-Walker. Progressive delayed payment, citing the need for Gowan-Walker's examination under oath (EUO) and extensive medical and workers' compensation records. Although Gowan-Walker completed her EUO, Progressive continued to issue delay letters, requesting information primarily from third parties and Gowan-Walker's attorney, without directly contacting GSAA for verification. The court denied Progressive's motion for summary judgment, ruling that an insurer cannot indefinitely toll the 30-day payment period by requesting verification unrelated to the specific provider's claim or by failing to request verification directly from the provider.

No-fault benefitsSummary JudgmentInsurance LawVerification RequestDelay LetterEUOMedical RecordsInsurance ClaimsTimelinessTolling
References
9
Case No. MON 0114910
Regular
Oct 02, 2007

TEDDIE GRIFFIN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES - IHSS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimants' Petition for Reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. The Board noted that even after the WCJ pointed out the defect, the lien claimants failed to cure the lack of verification. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory verification requirement.

LachesLabor Code section 4903.5PrejudiceLien claimantsCalifornia Psychiatric CenterNeuro-Electro DiagnosticPetition for ReconsiderationVerificationLabor Code section 5902Dismissal
References
2
Case No. ADJ1274234
Regular
Jun 23, 2015

YVONNE SAA vs. BODIES IN MOTION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Yvonne Saa's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. Notice of this defect was given, and Saa failed to cure it by filing a verification or providing a compelling explanation within a reasonable time. The Board noted that even if not dismissed for lack of verification, the petition would have been denied on its merits according to the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerificationLabor Code section 5902Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10450(e)Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodySignificant Panel DecisionUnverified petitionDismissal
References
1
Case No. ADJ8231324
Regular
Jan 12, 2016

MARIA GUEVARA vs. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Maria Guevara's petition for reconsideration because it was unverified. Labor Code section 5902 mandates verification for such petitions. Guevara was notified of this defect, and despite a reasonable time passing, failed to cure it by filing a verification or providing a compelling explanation for its absence. Therefore, the WCAB dismissed the petition, noting it would have also been denied on the merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10450(e)Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyWCJ reportADJ8231324Unverified petitionNotice of defectCure defect
References
1
Case No. BAK 0150807
Regular
Feb 05, 2008

JODI SMITH vs. COUNTY OF KERN, PROBATION DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Jodi Smith's Petition for Reconsideration because it lacked the mandatory verification required by Labor Code section 5902. Applicant sought reconsideration of a finding that her back injury was not a compensable consequence of her admitted right lower extremity industrial injury. Even without the verification defect, the Board would have denied the petition based on the judge's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injuryright lower extremityprobation officercompensable consequenceincomplete discoverylack of verificationLabor Code section 5902
References
2
Case No. ADJ2862412 (LBO 0337338)
Regular
Jun 08, 2009

MICHAEL BRAJEVICH vs. TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for removal because it was unverified. The defendant sought to rescind a prior order continuing the matter to trial, arguing a previous award was clear and the lien claimant should have sought reconsideration. WCAB Rule 10843(b) mandates verification for petitions for removal and answers thereto. Because the petition lacked verification, it was summarily dismissed.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCAB Rule 10843(b)Verified PleadingsRescind OrderOrder of ContinuationLien ClaimantIrreparable HarmVerified PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ7583327
Regular
May 16, 2013

JORGE GRAIBE vs. CVS CAREMARK, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Jorge Graibe's petition for reconsideration against CVS Caremark and its insurer because the petition was unverified. Labor Code section 5902 requires verification, and despite notice of this defect and a reasonable opportunity to cure it, the petitioner failed to file a verification or provide a compelling explanation for its absence. The Board would have denied the petition on the merits as well, adopting the WCJ's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodySignificant Panel DecisionDefectCureCompelling reasonPrejudice
References
1
Case No. RIV 59277
Regular
Aug 07, 2007

REINA GUERRA vs. VALLEY CHRISTIAN HOME, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's second petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed, despite the defendant's claim of subsequent verification. The defendant's initial petition was dismissed for lack of verification, and their subsequent attempt to correct this issue was filed beyond the jurisdictional 25-day deadline. Furthermore, the petition was improperly filed with a district office instead of directly with the Appeals Board Reconsideration Unit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUnverified petitionProof of serviceTimelinessJurisdictionalDismissalRule 10840Labor Code 5903Code Civil Procedure 1013
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 212 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