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. ADJ3714425 (FRE 0234250) ADJ896033 (FRE 0171714)
Regular
Aug 22, 2014

MICHAEL WRIGHT vs. STAR MEDIA, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding a WCJ's order that enforced a reimbursement order against Travelers Indemnity Company. The Board found the reimbursement order void *ab initio* due to procedural due process infirmities. Specifically, the "self-destruct" clause in the order did not comport with due process protections outlined in precedent cases like *Mitchell v. Golden Eagle Ins.*, failing to guarantee a review of objections or automatically void the order upon valid objection. Therefore, Travelers' due process rights were violated, necessitating the rescission of the WCJ's findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder for ReimbursementCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Cumulative Trauma InjuryAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)ApportionmentDue ProcessSelf-Destruct ClauseVoid Ab Initio
References
Case No. ADJ6939769
Regular
Sep 28, 2010

RONY BONILLA vs. AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding the prior Findings and Award. The Board found the original decision void *ab initio* due to the Administrative Law Judge's failure to serve the Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence and issue a Notice of Intent to Submit. This procedural defect deprived the defendant of due process and the opportunity to object. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceLabor Code section 5313Board Rule 10562(a)(2)Notice of Intent to SubmitDue ProcessExpedited Hearing
References
Case No. ADJ292109 (LAO 0863163)
Regular
Oct 27, 2015

Erica Brumfield vs. County of Los Angeles, Department of Social Services, York Risk Services

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's dismissal order. The dismissal was based on a defendant's petition containing material misrepresentations and improper service on the unrepresented applicant. Crucially, the defendant failed to properly serve notice of dismissal proceedings, and the applicant was actively pursuing her claim as evidenced by her communications with adjusters and medical providers. Therefore, the dismissal order is void *ab initio* due to lack of due process and material misrepresentations.

Amended Petition to Set Aside DismissalPetition to Dismiss Based On Lack of Prosecutionvoid ab initiomaterial misrepresentationPetition for Reconsiderationrescind the Orderindustrial injuryunrepresentedin propria personamisrepresentation of facts
References
Case No. ADJ1862937 (VNO 0503723)
Regular
May 07, 2012

TRAVIS GRANT vs. SIERRACIN CORPORATION (PPG INDUSTRIES), administered by AVIZENT RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to revive a December 9, 2008 dismissal order, arguing it was valid under Appeals Board Rule 10852. However, the Board found this dismissal order void *ab initio* because it was issued without the required notice of intention to dismiss and opportunity to be heard, as mandated by CCR Title 8, Section 10582. Therefore, the prior finding that the applicant's claim had not been dismissed was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinding of FactOrder of DismissalRule 10852Rule 10582Lack of ProsecutionNotice of Intention to DismissVoid Ab InitioAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ9518031
Regular
Oct 16, 2014

MARIA LUISA GARCIA vs. GABRIEL STEFFENS AND KATHERINE E. BELL, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Removal to address the dismissal of their Petition to Quash a subpoena duces tecum (SDT). The defendant argued the SDT was improperly served only on the defendant, not their counsel, despite notice of representation being filed. The Board agreed that failure to serve counsel renders an SDT void ab initio. Consequently, the Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's dismissal order and returned the matter to the trial level for a merits determination of the Petition to Quash.

Petition for RemovalPetition to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumService of ProcessVoid ab initioMootnessIndustrial InjuryRight Upper ExtremityPsycheBaby Sitter
References
Case No. ADJ7965938
Regular
Jul 08, 2013

ALDO GUTIERREZ vs. PROGRESSIVE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding that the prior Order of Dismissal was void because it violated WCAB Rule 10582 by not following proper dismissal procedures and instead included a clause making it voidable by objection. The Board rescinded both the void Order of Dismissal and subsequent related orders that were predicated on its validity. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalOrder of DismissalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLack of ProsecutionWCAB Rule 10582Void ab initioPetition to ReopenMandatory Settlement ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial Injury
References
Case No. ADJ8345837
Regular
Dec 04, 2015

FRANCISCO MORA vs. TIP TOP ARBORIST; TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a WCJ's order denying the defendant's third-party credit. The Board found the WCJ erred by treating the defendant's Notice of Credit as a petition and denying it without affording the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. This violated the defendant's due process rights, rendering the original order void. Therefore, reconsideration was granted, and the prior order was rescinded.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationThird Party CreditFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeNotice of CreditDue ProcessWCAB Rule 10450Void Ab InitioRescinded
References
Case No. ADJ4334434
Regular
Jul 24, 2013

TARIK JUSUFBEGOVIC vs. FIESTA FORD LINCOLN MERCURY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claimant's lien. The lien claimant argued the dismissal order was void due to improper service by the defendant instead of the Board. While the Board agreed the order should have been served by the Board, they found the procedural defect did not prejudice the lien claimant as their petition for reconsideration was timely filed. Therefore, the Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning and denied the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJlien dismissalRule 10500service of processvoid ab initiosubstantial prejudicetimely filinglien activation fee
References
Case No. ADJ8617543
Regular
Mar 22, 2018

MARIA MORALES vs. JET ABRASIVES INC., HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to a lien claimant whose lien was dismissed for failure to appear at a conference. The Board found the dismissal void because the lien claimant never received notice of the hearing. Additionally, the Board noted procedural defects, including the lack of a required notice of intent to dismiss and improper service of the dismissal order. Consequently, the Board rescinded the dismissal and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimLien conferenceWCAB rule 10562Lack of noticeReport and RecommendationVoid ab initioNotice of intent to dismissProof of serviceWCAB Rule 10500
References
Case No. ADJ803055 (LAO 0817649)
Regular
Apr 23, 2010

ALESIA BUTLER vs. AZIMUTH TECHNOLOGIES/AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, Administered By CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who sought to reopen her claim over seven years after her injury date. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior ruling that had rescinded a dismissal order. The WCAB found that the prior ruling was void for lack of jurisdiction as it was issued more than five years after the date of injury. Consequently, the WCAB dismissed the applicant's petition to reopen as untimely and barred by the statute of limitations.

WCABRemovalReconsiderationFinding and OrderPetition to ReopenLabor Code Section 5803Industrial InjuryFacilities TechnicianJurisdictionDue Process
References
Showing 1-10 of 92 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