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. ADJ1980864 (SDO 0296241)
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

KATHERINE TARTER vs. SAN DIEGO TRANSIT

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Appeals Board denied the self-insured defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's award of temporary total disability and a 25% penalty for unreasonable refusal to pay. The Board found the defendant waived the argument that a prior stipulated award barred the penalty claim, as this issue was raised for the first time on appeal. The defendant's contention that temporary disability should be based on post-injury earnings was also rejected. Finally, the Board will return the case for further proceedings concerning misrepresentations in the defendant's petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderTemporary Total DisabilityLabor Code section 5814Unreasonable RefusalPenaltiesLabor Code section 4650San Diego TransitPermissibly Self-Insured
References
Case No. SAU8813471
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

KIMBERLY KENNEY vs. SEGUOYAH, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for removal of an order consolidating liens and imposing a temporary stay. The consolidation aims to resolve a common legal issue regarding whether the lien claimant is controlled by a criminally charged physician, which would trigger an automatic stay under Labor Code section 4615. The Board found no due process violation, as the order only stays other lien issues pending the common issue's adjudication. Furthermore, the consolidation serves judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicate rulings on this critical threshold matter.

WCABPetition for RemovalOrder of Consolidation and StayLien ClaimantLabor Code section 4615Due ProcessIssue PreclusionConsolidation OrderWCJFarmers Insurance Exchange
References
Case No. ADJ8620013, ADJ10761228
Regular
Jun 08, 2017

MARK EBERWEIN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order. The WCAB further denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial. The WCJ's decision addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not a substantive right or threshold issue. Therefore, neither reconsideration nor removal was deemed appropriate at this stage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ10652805
Regular
Nov 16, 2018

JESUS ARELLANO vs. RJP FRAMING, INC.; REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was taken from a non-final interlocutory order. The order at issue, which closed discovery, did not determine substantive rights, liabilities, or a threshold issue fundamental to the claim. Therefore, it was not a final order as required for reconsideration under Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903. The Board also found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if the petition were treated as a request for removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueRemoval
References
Case No. ADJ9689895
Regular
Sep 19, 2025

ROBERT GONZALES vs. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SERVICES CORPORATION, AIG

The Appeals Board denied Northrop Grumman's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant argued the judge erred by not requiring a pre-trial conference statement at the mandatory settlement conference and by setting the matter for trial without notice of issues. However, the Board noted that defendant's own actions invited or waived the alleged error, and a subsequent filing of the statement rendered the argument moot. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and reconsideration is an adequate remedy for any potential adverse decision.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJMandatory Settlement ConferencePre-Trial Conference StatementTriable IssuesLabor Code Section 5811WCAB Rule 10515DemurrersPetitions for Judgment on Pleadings
References
Case No. ADJ12205724
Regular
Jul 03, 2019

DENISSE LOPEZ vs. CHINO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, HCMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Consequently, the case proceeds as if no reconsideration or removal was granted.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ10648626
Regular
Apr 27, 2018

LUBIA CASTANEDA vs. ELITE SUBLIMATION, INC., REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed Lubia Castaneda's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's decision on venue was an interlocutory procedural issue, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, it was not a proper subject for reconsideration. The petition for removal was also denied as Castaneda failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ3521523 (OAK0322592), ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685), ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Oct 25, 2016

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pamela Zeilstra's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order. The WCAB determined that the workers' compensation judge's decision only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. Furthermore, the petition for removal was denied, as Zeilstra failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ9 131383
Regular
Jul 07, 2017

MARTIN HEREDIA vs. CERTIFIED AVIATION SERVICES, PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's decision addressed an intermediate procedural issue, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. The petition for removal was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning in both instances. This ruling clarifies that only final orders are subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,078 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