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. 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. ADJ7713043, ADJ6929457
Regular
May 29, 2012

HAE LEE vs. BEVERLY WORLD INDUSTRIES, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Applicant Hae Lee's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal was based on two primary grounds: the petition's lack of verification as required by Labor Code section 5902 and its status as a "skeletal" pleading. Even if properly verified, the Board indicated the petition would have been denied on its merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. The Board also noted the petition bordered on frivolous and returned the matter to the WCJ for consideration of sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVerified PetitionLabor Code section 5902Skeletal PetitionReport and RecommendationWCJDismissalFrivolous PetitionSanctions
References
Case No. ADJ2637562 (AHM 0384910) ADJ3615654 (AHM 0384911)
Regular
Jul 01, 2011

ABENAA APPAUH vs. ARROWHEAD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Abenaa Appauh's Petitions for Removal seeking to overturn an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found the petitions lacked merit and failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The judge noted that a petition for reconsideration would be an adequate remedy after a final decision. Additionally, the petitions were deemed defective due to a lack of proper verification.

Petitions for RemovalOrder DenyingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubpoena Duces TecumQuashing SubpoenaLabor Code §5310WCJVerified PetitionAmended PetitionDeclaration
References
Case No. ADJ1574286
Regular
Oct 23, 2013

JUTTA BENNETT vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FRONTIER INSURANCE, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the California Physician Network's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not timely filed. The petition was first received by the Board on August 29, 2013, well past the August 9th deadline after the July 10th order dismissing the lien. Furthermore, the petition was unverified and failed to state any specific legal grounds for reconsideration as required by statute. The Board also noted that even if the merits were considered, the petition would have been denied due to its "skeletal" nature and lack of evidentiary support.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLien ClaimantLien conferenceNotice of Intent to Dismiss LienOrder Dismissing LienPetition for ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSLabor CodeTimely Filed
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. ADJ8589789
Regular
Jun 05, 2014

ANTONIA GARCIA vs. GOGLANIAN BAKERIES, CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Antonia Garcia's Petition for Reconsideration against Goglanian Bakeries and Chubb Group of Insurance Companies. The dismissal was based on the petition's failure to meet the verification requirement of Labor Code section 5902. Even if it had been verified, the WCAB would have denied the petition on its merits, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation judge.

Petition for ReconsiderationVerifiedLabor Code section 5902DismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationVerified PetitionDenied on MeritsWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ8183477
Regular
Jan 14, 2016

DOLORES MOSELEY vs. NOIA RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., ICW GROUP/INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Dolores Moseley's petition for reconsideration. The petition was untimely as it sought reconsideration of an award made over a year prior to filing. Furthermore, the petition was unverified and lacked specificity regarding the issues and legal arguments. Finally, the orders Moseley sought to reconsider were either vacated or deemed non-final procedural decisions, rendering the petition moot.

Labor Code Section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Dismissing PetitionOrder Vacating Trial DateStipulations with Request for AwardTimelinessJurisdictionalVerification
References
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
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
Showing 1-10 of 13,510 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