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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Bressler

Carbon Investment Partners LLC and Carbon Master Fund LP moved to extend deadlines to object to debtor Lee Alexander Bressler's discharge under sections 523(c) and 727 of the Bankruptcy Code. Carbon argued that the 60-day deadline should run from the date the creditors' meeting actually took place, not the first scheduled date, and claimed an oral agreement with Bressler's counsel for an extension. The court, citing unambiguous language in Bankruptcy Rules 4004 and 4007 and their 1999 amendments, ruled that the deadline is calculated from the *first date set* for the 341 Meeting, making Carbon's motion untimely. The court also rejected Carbon's equitable arguments, emphasizing that only the court can grant extensions and reliance on an unapproved oral agreement was unreasonable. While acknowledging Bressler's alleged misconduct, the court found the circumstances not 'extraordinary' enough for equitable tolling. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing for potential future objections under Bankruptcy Rule 4004(b)(2) if new facts emerge.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7Discharge ObjectionsBankruptcy RulesDeadline ExtensionEquitable TollingEquitable EstoppelCreditors' MeetingUntimely MotionFraudulent Conduct
References
30
Case No. RDG 0115958
Significant
Nov 16, 2004

Brice Sandhagen, Applicant vs. Cox & Cox Construction, Inc.; State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board held that the utilization review time deadlines are mandatory; if a defendant fails to meet these deadlines, any utilization review report is inadmissible, and the defendant must use the AME/QME procedure as the objecting party.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Time DeadlinesAdmissibility of EvidenceMedical Treatment RecommendationACOEM GuidelinesAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorSection 4062
References
23
Case No. ADJ6726149
Significant
Mar 22, 2018

Pedro Hernandez vs. Henkel Loctite Corporation, Zurich American Ins. Co., administrated by Zurich North America/Los Angeles

The Appeals Board held that a lien claimant's declaration filed on Monday, July 3, 2017, was timely because the statutory deadline of July 1, 2017 fell on a Saturday, extending the deadline to the next business day. The defendant's Petition for Reconsideration was therefore denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEN BANCPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantLabor Code Section 4903.05DeclarationTimely FilingEAMSDismissal NotationNext Business Day
References
21
Case No. ADJ4700514 (RDG 0104247) ADJ3038015 (RDG 0121741)
Regular
Nov 10, 2008

MICHELLE TOMEI vs. GENUINE PARTS, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed two days after the statutory deadline. The deadline for filing was September 8, 2008, but the petition was not received by the Board until September 10, 2008. The Board lacked jurisdiction to consider an untimely petition, even with consideration of CCP § 473.

CommutationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor CodeCode of Civil ProcedureTimelinessJurisdictionalOrder of CommutationOpinion on Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ9542380
Regular
Feb 14, 2020

Blance, Maria vs. ARMM, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Maria Blanco's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the 25-day statutory deadline. The WCAB clarified that filing means receipt by the Board, not just mailing. As the deadline is jurisdictional, the Board lacked authority to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional LimitWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10392Service by MailProof of MailingAdministrative Law Judge
References
4
Case No. AHM 0079163
Regular
Aug 16, 2007

Ruth Torres vs. Bank of America, Cambridge Integrated Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed 43 days after the statutory deadline. The original order dismissing the lien was served by mail on April 19, 2007, making the reconsideration deadline May 14, 2007. Since the petition was received on June 26, 2007, it was untimely and therefore dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienLien claimantAdministrative Law JudgeNotice of Intention to Disallow LienUntimely PetitionStatutory PeriodLabor CodeBoard Rule
References
5
Case No. ADJ9782712
Regular
Jan 29, 2020

MARCELO RODRIGUEZ vs. PANDA WOK, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely. The petition was filed on December 10, 2019, which was beyond the 25-day deadline for reconsideration following the WCJ's November 14, 2019 decision. Filing a petition after the jurisdictional deadline deprives the WCAB of authority to consider it. Had the petition been timely, it would have been denied on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalJurisdictional Time LimitWCJ ReportMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Service by MailProof of FilingFinal Decision
References
4
Case No. ADJ10213096 (MF), ADJ10230361
Regular
May 16, 2019

KALYANA GANDIKOTA vs. SK HYNIX MEMORY SOLUTIONS, ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the 25-day statutory deadline. The Board emphasized that the filing deadline is jurisdictional and failure to meet it bars consideration of the petition. Even if timely, the Board indicated it would have denied the petition on its merits based on the WCJ's report.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationuntimelydismissedfiling deadlineservice by mailLabor CodeCalifornia Code of RegulationsjurisdictionalWCJ report
References
4
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
1
Case No. ADJ9161105
Regular
Mar 04, 2019

EULOJIO MERAZ vs. TRI STATE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, ACCOUNTABILITIES; CIGA, ICW

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Eulojio Meraz's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The WCJ's order was issued on November 29, 2018, making the deadline for reconsideration December 24, 2018. Meraz's petition was filed on January 14, 2019, which exceeded the jurisdictional deadline. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider the petition's merits and had to dismiss it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsiderationuntimelydismissaljurisdictional time limitLab. CodeCal. Code Regs.Lien ClaimNon-AppearanceLien Conference
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 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