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. ADJ9922433
Regular
Dec 08, 2015

PAUL BIXBY vs. CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH

This case concerns an applicant's petition for removal of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) based on alleged bias. The applicant's petition, though unverified and procedurally deficient, was treated as a disqualification request. The WCJ acknowledged inappropriate behavior and recused himself from the case, rendering the applicant's requested relief moot. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition for removal as moot, while cautioning the applicant about future procedural compliance.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ disqualificationOrder taking matter off calendarOrder Quashing Subpoena Duces Tecumbiasmootnessrecusalprocedural requirementsunverified petition
References
Case No. ADJ1117931 (LAO 0743685) ADJ1499748 (LAO 0743689) ADJ4716197 (LAO 0743687)
Regular
May 26, 2010

CARMEN LICEA vs. ZACKY FARMS; Administered By BUCKEYE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying the admission of additional evidence and witnesses was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final determination of substantive rights. The WCAB denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no showing of prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the applicant's petition to disqualify the WCJ, noting the lack of a required affidavit and finding no evidence of bias or enmity. Ultimately, all of the applicant's post-order filings were denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCarmen LiceaZacky FarmsBuckeye Claims AdministratorsPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJDr. Procciwork function impairment form
References
Case No. ADJ3115086 (LAO 0814105)
Regular
Feb 05, 2016

MARICELA PADILLA vs. JOY KIDS CORPORATION, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration due to multiple procedural defects. The petition was not verified as required by statute and appealed an interim notice of dismissal rather than a final order. Furthermore, the petition failed to articulate specific legal grounds for reconsideration. The Board noted that the lien claimant should have filed an objection with the Workers' Compensation Judge, and warned of potential sanctions for future procedural errors.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissUnverified PetitionFailure to AppearLien TrialWCJFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5902
References
Case No. ADJ9139200
Regular
Dec 11, 2015

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Matthew Bakes' petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be based on "final" orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions. The WCJ's decision at issue here only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter. Thus, it was not a final order, and the petition was procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsRemoval
References
Case No. ADJ3070217 (POM 0298265)
Regular
Apr 09, 2012

VICKIE WILLIAMS vs. JUDICIAL COURTS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, ADMINISTERED BY CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Vickie Williams' petitions for reconsideration. These petitions sought to set aside reports from two Workers' Compensation Judges (WCJs) that were issued in response to Williams' prior petitions for removal and disqualification. The Board found that the WCJ reports were not final orders subject to reconsideration, and even if they were, the underlying Board orders being reconsidered were procedural, not final. Furthermore, Williams failed to present new evidence or arguments not previously rejected, making her petitions successive and subject to dismissal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Judicial Courts/Administrative Office of the CourtsCorvel CorporationInterim Procedural OrdersFinal OrderNewly Discovered Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ10713537
Regular
Jun 08, 2018

ROBIN SHELINE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves an attorney's petition for reconsideration of a stipulation and order that dismissed the applicant's claim for $1,500.00 and awarded no attorney fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it failed to comply with WCAB rule 10778, which requires proof of service on the applicant regarding the attorney's adverse interest and the applicant's right to independent counsel. Had the petition not been dismissed on procedural grounds, the WCAB indicated it would have denied it on the merits, citing the WCJ's Report that questioned the attorney's representation and noted the WCJ had to intervene to increase the settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderApplicantIn-Home Supportive ServicesAttorney FeesWCJDismissalWCAB Rule 10778Adverse Interest
References
Case No. ADJ18267667
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

ANA ORDAZ DE AMAYA vs. INTERSTATE MEAT CO., INC., COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Disqualification against WCJ Tammy Homen, upholding her report. The Board found the petition lacked specific factual allegations required by Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. It emphasized that a WCJ's opinions or rulings, made in official duties and based on evidence, do not establish bias for disqualification. The WCJ's report indicated the petitioner's attorney, Albert Andrew Navarra, objected to an in-person appearance rather than demonstrating grounds for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil Procedure section 641Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Rule 10960WCJbiasenmityunqualified opinionaffidavitdeclaration under penalty of perjury
References
Case No. ADJ9417204
Regular
Oct 05, 2018

SILVANA BEDROSSIAN vs. GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified and the petitioner failed to cure this defect after notice. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found no compelling reason for the lack of verification and that the petitioner did not act with diligence. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate excusable neglect for not filing a required declaration and did not seek relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473. Although the Board did not condone the petitioner's behavior, sanctions were not deemed warranted at this time.

Petition for ReconsiderationLack of VerificationLabor Code Section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodyCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10450(e)WCJ ReportCode of Civil Procedure Section 473Excusable NeglectLien ClaimantDeclaration Requirement
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
Showing 1-10 of 11,615 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