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. ADJ12788878
Regular
Dec 10, 2020

MARIO LUPERCIO PEREZ vs. ARMANDO CHAN dba CHAN DRAINAGE, MARKEL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed as a removal petition challenging interlocutory issues. Although the WCJ's decision contained a final threshold finding of injury AOE/COE, the defendant only disputed the specialty of a QME and the timeliness of an objection, which are interlocutory. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy later if a final adverse decision issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueInjury AOE/COEQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Treating Physician ReportRemoval StandardSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. MON 339411
Regular
Jun 27, 2008

DIONISIO JIMENEZ vs. NUPAC APARTMENTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB has granted the petition, acknowledging the need for further review of the factual and legal issues. This reconsideration is being undertaken to ensure a thorough understanding of the record and to enable the Board to issue a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionReconsideration UnitNupac Apartments
References
Case No. ADJ11568028
Regular
Mar 03, 2020

STEPHANIE MAHONEY vs. YMCA; TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE, administered by SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final, interlocutory order regarding venue. The WCAB reiterated that reconsideration is only proper for final orders that determine substantive rights or threshold issues. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate such an extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's decision on venue was deemed an intermediate procedural ruling, not subject to appeal at this stage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ10490298
Regular
Dec 13, 2019

NORMAN SILVA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.; ON BEHALF OF ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by CORVEL

The Appeals Board denied Norman Silva's Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying WCJ decision resolved threshold issues like employment and injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, making it a final order. Petitioner's challenge focused solely on the administrative issue of the QME selection, not the merits of the final findings. The Board found no grounds for removal, as petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the QME issue, nor was there evidence of ex parte communication. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the WCJ's decision stands.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationThreshold IssueFinal DecisionInjury Arising Out of and In the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Employment RelationshipStatute of LimitationsRemovalPanel Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)Ex Parte Communication
References
Case No. ADJ10365809 ADJ9413677 ADJ9231147 ADJ9414072
Regular
Oct 06, 2017

GINA LUTTENEGGER vs. CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Gina Luttenegger's petition for reconsideration because it was taken from an interlocutory order regarding the disqualification of an agreed medical examiner, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied her petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued. The applicant can still request a supplemental report from the AME.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueThreshold IssueAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Substantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ6408456
Regular
May 17, 2010

KENNETH M. HOOVER vs. CITY OF POMONA

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's award of 100% permanent total disability. The Board found that the WCJ's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, primarily due to deficiencies in Dr. Grodan's medical reporting regarding the applicant's skin and cardiovascular conditions. The matter was returned to the trial level for further development of the record and a new decision. The Board confirmed the application of the 1997 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule and the admission of Dr. Shirman's report.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDADJ6408456KENNETH M. HOOVERCITY OF POMONAreconsiderationFindings and Award and Orderworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJMay 172010
References
Case No. ADJ6861253
Regular
Jun 02, 2025

JASON HARP vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Appeals Board considered a petition for reconsideration and removal, finding it was timely acted upon in accordance with Labor Code section 5909. The Board determined that the WCJ's underlying decision was a final order due to the resolution of threshold issues, making it subject to reconsideration. However, as the petitioner only disputed interlocutory findings, the petition was reviewed under the removal standard. The Board ultimately denied the petition because the petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Transmission of CaseThreshold IssuesInterlocutory IssuesRemoval StandardSignificant Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ8668744
Regular
Apr 07, 2015

MARIA ESPINOZA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Applicant Espinoza's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from an interlocutory order, not a final decision that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying this extraordinary remedy. Applicant failed to demonstrate that reconsideration would be inadequate should a final adverse decision occur later. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition for removal were dismissed and denied, respectively.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. VNO 426125
Regular
Jun 27, 2008

JAMES SWEARINGEN vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation matter, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted reconsideration of the case. This decision was made after an initial review of the record to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. The Board intends to issue a just and reasoned decision after further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway PatrolState Compensation Insurance FundStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionDecision After ReconsiderationReconsideration Unit
References
Showing 1-10 of 10,632 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