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. ADJ3882107
Regular
Oct 04, 2012

PETER ARCARESE vs. LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL H. MILLER, STATE FARM CALIFORNIA, WC CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Peter Arcarese's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The petition was also dismissed as consecutive, attempting to relitigate issues previously addressed after a prior dismissal. Furthermore, the request for removal was denied as Arcarese failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderDismissed PetitionPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedyWrit of Review
References
Case No. ADJ2494845 (AHM 0113398)
Regular
Mar 21, 2011

DONALD W. STENERSON vs. TWR FRAMING/TWR ENTERPRISES, INC., CHARTIS COSTA MESA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Donald W. Stenerson's second petition for reconsideration. This dismissal occurred because Stenerson had previously filed a petition for reconsideration that was denied, and filing a second petition challenging the same original decision and the Board's prior denial is procedurally impermissible. Such successive petitions are barred, and the proper avenue for appeal after a denied petition is a writ of review. Additionally, the Board noted the petition was untimely.

Petition for reconsiderationDismissedConsecutive petitionSuccessive petitionTimely petitionWrit of reviewWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeCrowe Glass Company
References
Case No. ADJ999430 (PAS 0009969), ADJ3798683 (LAO 0577997), ADJ1783473 (LAO 0785005)
Regular
Aug 15, 2014

KARIN CHEN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves a second Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant Karin Chen challenging a prior Appeals Board decision. The Board is dismissing this petition because a party cannot file successive petitions for reconsideration after the Board has already ruled on a matter without admitting new evidence. Such an action is procedurally improper and requires a petition for writ of review instead. Therefore, the current Petition for Reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalConsecutive PetitionSuccessive PetitionPetition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeWrit of ReviewAppeals Board Decision*Crowe Glass Company v. I.A.C.*
References
Case No. ADJ716019 (MON 0297841) ADJ2383169 (MON 0297839) ADJ3880076 (MON 0297837)
Regular
Jun 29, 2010

JOSEFINA MARTINEZ vs. HEINZ PET PRODUCTS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, IMPRESS PACKAGING HOLDINGS, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) opinion dismisses a lien claimant's second petition for reconsideration. The WCAB had already denied the claimant's initial petition on April 28, 2010. Filing a successive petition to challenge a prior WCAB decision, after reconsideration was already denied, is procedurally improper. California law dictates that after a WCAB decision, the proper avenue for further appeal is a writ of review, not another petition for reconsideration. Therefore, the Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantDismissedConsecutive petitionSuccessive petitionWrit of reviewWCJ decisionBoard decisionCrowe Glass Company
References
Case No. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685)
Regular
Aug 15, 2014

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a second Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant Pamela Zeilstra challenging prior orders and the Appeals Board's own prior decision. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was a successive filing after a previous petition had already been denied. The Board clarified that once a petition for reconsideration is denied or dismissed, the proper recourse is a writ of review, not another petition. Applicant's subsequent answer was also rejected as procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationConsecutive PetitionSuccessive PetitionDismissedAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Writ of ReviewCrowe Glass Company
References
Case No. ADJ7255629, ADJ7258202
Regular
Apr 23, 2013

ROMALDA MERCADO vs. CM LAUNDRY, LLC, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES for CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a July 18, 2012 decision. The dismissal is based on the petitioner's withdrawal of the petition. Furthermore, the Board notes that the petition was likely untimely and defective, as indicated in the administrative law judge's report.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissing PetitionUntimely PetitionDefective PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge's ReportCase NumbersApplicantDefendantsWithdrawal of Petition
References
Case No. ADJ3399937 (VNO 0423516 ADJ8997142 ADJ10559387 ADJ7656828
Regular
Feb 27, 2019

DAVE ZADA vs. ALPRO MILLWORKING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Dave Zada's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition untimely, successive, and skeletal, failing to meet procedural requirements for reconsideration. Zada also did not demonstrate how he was aggrieved by the prior WCAB decision. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPro PerSuccessive PetitionUntimely PetitionSkeletal PetitionAggrieved PartyJurisdictional Time LimitVerified PleadingsMaterial EvidenceProof of Service
References
Case No. ADJ8183477
Regular
Jan 14, 2016

DOLORES MOSELEY vs. NOIA RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., ICW GROUP/INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Dolores Moseley's petition for reconsideration. The petition was untimely as it sought reconsideration of an award made over a year prior to filing. Furthermore, the petition was unverified and lacked specificity regarding the issues and legal arguments. Finally, the orders Moseley sought to reconsider were either vacated or deemed non-final procedural decisions, rendering the petition moot.

Labor Code Section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Dismissing PetitionOrder Vacating Trial DateStipulations with Request for AwardTimelinessJurisdictionalVerification
References
Case No. ADJ6705977 ADJ6880053
Regular
Jun 13, 2014

TERRI SIEGEL vs. WALGREENS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's untimely petition for removal, finding it lacked merit and was frivolous. The Board noted the petition was filed months after the subject orders, violating the 20-day filing deadline. Additionally, the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be inadequate. Consequently, the Board intends to impose sanctions of up to $1,000 on the defendant for filing a baseless petition.

Petition for RemovalUntimely PetitionOrder Vacating SubmissionOrder Taking Off CalendarReport and RecommendationSanctionsFrivolous PetitionLabor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Significant Prejudice
References
Showing 1-10 of 13,505 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