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. ADJ473919 (FRE 0241190) ADJ6661819
Regular
Dec 24, 2014

ALVIN WALLS vs. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. The prior WCAB decision granted reconsideration, rescinded the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings, thus not determining substantive rights or liabilities. Generally, such interlocutory orders are not subject to reconsideration until a final decision is rendered. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as premature.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueReconsideration GrantedRescinded DecisionFurther ProceedingsWCJ DecisionWCAB Order
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
References
Case No. ADJ1600976 (OAK 0345394) ADJ1359107 (OAK 0345395)
Regular
May 03, 2016

ELAINE JACKSON vs. COMCAST CORPORATION

This case involves a petition for removal filed by Comcast Corporation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely. The WCAB found that the petition was filed more than 25 days after the WCJ's decision was served, exceeding the statutory deadline for filing such a petition. Even if it had been timely, the WCAB would have denied it on the merits based on the WCJ's report.

Petition for RemovalTimelinessWCAB Rule 10843(a)WCJ DecisionService by MailPetition FilingWCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10508Mailing vs. FilingWCAB Rule 10845(a)
References
Case No. ADJ9997985, ADJ9997986, ADJ10037755
Regular
Apr 10, 2017

DAVID LIVINGSTON vs. SOUTHEAST PERSONNEL LEASING, INC.;, PACKARD CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION;, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for removal filed by the defendant. The WCAB found the petition was untimely because it was filed one day after the 20-day deadline for removal following personal service. This deadline is jurisdictional, and the WCAB cannot consider petitions filed outside this timeframe. Therefore, the petition was dismissed with no request for supplemental pleading granted.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingPersonal ServiceWCJ DecisionAppeals Board RuleJurisdictional Time LimitSupplemental PleadingWCAB Rule 10848WCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10507
References
Case No. ADJ7639734
Regular
Aug 13, 2015

MARK LIVINGSTON, KRISTINE LIVINGSTON vs. KEMPER SPORT MANAGEMENT INC., CRUM FORSTER

This case involves a Petition for Removal that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB found the petition to be untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the service of the WCJ's decision. Filing by mail does not satisfy the requirement that the petition must be *received* by the WCAB within the statutory period. Therefore, the WCAB dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalUntimely FilingWCJ DecisionService by MailBusiness Day ExtensionProof of FilingWCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10843(a)WCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10845(a)
References
Case No. ADJ358640 (ANA 0408299)
Regular
Dec 13, 2017

JOSE BASULTO vs. BREA ROOFING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In *Basulto v. Brea Roofing*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The WCAB emphasized that the 25-day filing deadline for reconsideration is jurisdictional and requires the petition to be *received* by the Board, not merely mailed, within that period. The petition in this case was filed 26 days after the WCJ's decision, exceeding the statutory timeframe. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the authority to review the petition on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeService by MailJurisdictional Time LimitProof of MailingWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845
References
Case No. ADJ6759028 ADJ9793036
Regular
Sep 09, 2015

JAVIER MOYA vs. SLEEP TRAIN, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Javier Moya's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. California law allows twenty-five days for filing, with extensions for weekends or holidays, but the petition was filed over four months after the WCJ's decision. Timeliness is a jurisdictional requirement, meaning the WCAB lacks authority to consider petitions filed outside this timeframe. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits as per the WCJ's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationuntimelydismissaljurisdictionalWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10392proof of mailingproof of receipt
References
Case No. ADJ6763029
Regular
Dec 11, 2018

MARTIN RODRIGUEZ vs. VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPING, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Martin Rodriguez's Petition for Removal as untimely. The petition was filed over 25 days after the WCJ's July 28, 2015 decision, exceeding the allowed filing period. Timeliness requires actual receipt by the WCAB, not just mailing. Had it been timely, the petition would have been denied on the merits, adopting the WCJ's reasoning.

Petition for RemovalUntimelyDismissedWCAB Rule 10843(a)WCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)WCJ's reportService by mail
References
Case No. ADJ2065472
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

CARLOS DURAN vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of the WCJ's prior decision in *Carlos Duran v. Ralphs Grocery Company*. The WCAB rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. This action means the prior decision is no longer in effect and the case will be reheard by the WCJ. The parties retain their rights to seek further reconsideration of any new decision.

WCABReconsiderationRescindedReturned to Trial LevelFurther ProceedingsWCJ DecisionAdministrative Law JudgeRalphs Grocery CompanySedgwickCarlos Duran
References
Showing 1-10 of 11,959 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