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. ADJ7813636
Regular
Oct 28, 2013

RAMONA GARNICA vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES

Willow Medical Group sought reconsideration of a dismissed lien, alleging it had paid all required fees. However, the administrative law judge (WCJ) reported no order dismissing the lien on the date cited by Willow. Since reconsideration is only available for final orders and no such order exists in the record, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Willow's petition. The lien claimant's prior dismissal order had already been vacated by the WCJ.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationDismissed lienOrder to DismissVacated orderCompromise and ReleaseWCJ ReportEAMS recordProcedural historySubstantive right
References
2
Case No. ADJ3269128 (SAC 0315100)
Regular
Jan 29, 2010

STEFANIE KING vs. SIERRA FAMILY SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) order for further medical record development. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding the challenged order was not a "final order" subject to reconsideration. The Board also rescinded the WCJ's subsequent order appointing a physician, as the WCJ lacked authority to issue it while a petition for reconsideration was pending. Removal was granted on the Board's own motion to address the impropriety of the WCJ's order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinding and OrderCumulative PeriodIndustrial InjuryMononucleosisEpstein-Barr Syndrome
References
7
Case No. ADJ9058932
Regular
Jul 28, 2014

DIANA OCHOA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding it was an improper remedy for contesting a final order to pay a deposition fee. Treating the petition as one for reconsideration of the WCJ's order to pay $1,300 in deposition fees, the Board also dismissed it as untimely filed. The defendant's objection was overruled via WCJ correspondence on April 22, 2014, making the petition for reconsideration due by May 19, 2014, but it was filed on May 27, 2014. The Board would have denied reconsideration on the merits due to the WCJ's reasoning, had it been timely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5710Deposition FeeWCJDue ProcessFinal OrderTimely FiledEvidentiary Hearing
References
4
Case No. ADJ13227834
Regular
Oct 10, 2025

Efren Sifuentes Nava vs. San Carlos Roofing Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Defendant SCIF filed a petition for removal challenging an order to serve medical records issued on December 2, 2024, by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ recommended dismissal because the defendant's objection to the order included a self-destruct clause, rendering the original order moot upon objection. The Appeals Board agreed that there was no active order to challenge and further noted the permissibility of a WCJ rescinding an offending order to promote judicial economy. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot.

Petition for RemovalWCJ OrderSelf-Destruct ClauseMootRescissionJudicial EconomyAppeals BoardCost PetitionerMedical RecordsAdjudication Number
References
1
Case No. ADJ9681671
Regular
Jul 01, 2016

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL vs. TEN WEST TOWING-PTO, SERVICES/STRUCTURE AND CLAIMS RESERVE MANAGEMENT

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by an attorney challenging the dismissal of his untimely Petition for Removal. The Appeals Board granted removal to correct a clerical error in their prior decision regarding the date of the WCJ's order. The Board dismissed the current Petition for Reconsideration as successive and because the underlying WCJ's order denying the attorney's request to be relieved was not a final, appealable order.

PETITION FOR REMOVALPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONCLERICAL ERRORMANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCERELIEVED AS ATTORNEY OF RECORDNON-FINAL ORDERLABOR CODE SECTION 5310SUCCESSIVE PETITIONSUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OR LIABILITYINTERLOCUTORY PROCEDURAL DECISIONS
References
10
Case No. ADJ17569878
Regular
Apr 28, 2025

Marvin Pineda Contreras vs. Southwest Plastering, Inc.; Zenith Insurance Company

Lien Claimant Oracle Imaging Riverside sought reconsideration of an Order Dismissing Lien issued on December 23, 2024, by the WCJ, following its alleged failure to object to a notice of intention to dismiss. Oracle contended it had not received proper notice of the hearing date, attributing this to the Appeals Board not sending notifications to its P.O. Box. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as premature, returning the matter to the trial level for the WCJ to consider the Petition as one seeking to set aside the Order Dismissing Lien. The Board noted that any aggrieved party may seek reconsideration after the WCJ issues a subsequent decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien ClaimantNotice of IntentionFailure to AttendProper NoticeBad AddressReport and RecommendationCompromise and Release AgreementOrder Approving Compromise and Release
References
0
Case No. ADJ3875612 (LAO 0875949), ADJ4655048 (LAO 0875947), ADJ3780834 (LAO 0875984)
Regular
Aug 26, 2019

HUGO HERNANDEZ vs. FOX HILLS TOWING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a WCJ's statement that MedNet's lien claim was not dismissed. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding that the WCJ's statement concerned an interlocutory procedural issue, not a final order. Reconsideration is only permissible from final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities. No formal order of dismissal was ever issued for MedNet's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLien ClaimMedNetNotice of Intent to Issue SanctionsFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionDismissalRemoval
References
0
Case No. ADJ10793351
Regular
Sep 23, 2019

PHILLIP PUCCIARELLO vs. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, permissibly self-insured dba ALLIED, UNIVERSAL SECURITY, ESIS CHATSWORTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying dismissal was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted the defendant's petition for removal. The WCAB found the defendant's initial notice of intent to dismiss was properly served and rescinded the WCJ's denial of dismissal. The matter was returned to the WCJ to issue a ten-day notice of intention to dismiss for failure to prosecute, as defendant's independent investigation of mail delivery was improper.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10582Petition to DismissFailure to ProsecuteOrder Denying Petition for DismissalApplicantDefendantAdministrative Law Judge
References
7
Case No. ADJ10614689
Regular
May 04, 2018

ALEJANDRO SOSA vs. ADVANCED KNITTING MILLS, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order for an additional orthopedic QME panel, arguing it was an abuse of discretion and caused prejudice. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition as the order was not a final decision. However, the Board granted the petition for removal, finding the WCJ erred by ordering the panel based on a QME's recommendation for treatment rather than a disputed medical issue outside the QME's scope. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order, returning the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelOrthopedicsChiropracticMedical-legal evaluationAbuse of discretionSubstantial prejudice
References
5
Case No. ADJ11635947
Regular
Mar 25, 2020

EDMOND WOODS vs. CONTEMPORARY SERVICES CORPORATION, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Applicant petitioned for reconsideration of a Minute Order that stated "WCJ to issue dismissal without prejudice." The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because the applicant was not aggrieved by a final order, as no such order had yet been issued. A petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a final order that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or a fundamental threshold issue. Since the dismissal order itself had not yet been issued, the petition was premature and thus dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalAggrieved ApplicantFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueBenefitsWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 28,630 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