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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ8084758
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

SCOTT FAULKNER vs. CITY OF LOMPOC, WORKERS' COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by Judith Chambers and Chambers Medical Collections, Inc. The petition sought to challenge a WCJ's order for Chambers to pay attorney's fees and costs. The WCAB found the petition untimely regardless of whether the WCAB's initial service of the order was defective. Because the petition was filed significantly after the statutory deadlines, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDefective ServiceJurisdictional Time LimitsActual ReceiptLabor Code section 5813Attorney's FeesWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeAppeals BoardOfficial Address Record
References
Case No. ADJ2395920 (VNO 0339759) ADJ2271599 (LAO 0819690)
Regular
Apr 21, 2014

YOLANDA DIAZ vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The defendant claimed they were never served with the original award, but the WCAB found their petition was filed more than 20 days after they "became aware" of the decision. The WCAB emphasized that in cases of defective service, the petition must be filed within 20 days of actual receipt. Additionally, the defendant was admonished for raising new issues and for procedural errors in their filing.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardtimely filingserviceLabor CodestipulationElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)defective serviceuntimely petition
References
Case No. VNO 423882(MF) VNO 423884 VNO 439882 MON 326915
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

MIKE ROMANO vs. AIRCRAFT COMPONENT REPAIR, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petitioner's petition for reconsideration as untimely because it was filed more than twenty days after the applicant's attorney received the Order Approving Compromise and Release by fax. Although the petitioner's law firm claimed a policy against fax service, the Board found that actual receipt triggers the twenty-day filing deadline, regardless of service defects. The Board also clarified that even if fax service were considered, the deadline would still have passed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseTimeliness of FilingPetition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceEvidentiary HearingService by FaxActual ReceiptDefective Service
References
Case No. ADJ587289 (LBO 0321668)
Regular
202013-05-00

TERESA BACA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DPSS/CALWORKS/GAIN; TRISTAR; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Pinnacle Lien Services on behalf of lien claimant Dynamed, Inc., challenging a prior Order Imposing Sanctions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely. Although the petitioner claimed defective service of the sanctions order, the WCAB found that their own records, via the EAMS system, conclusively showed proper service of the relevant orders to Pinnacle Lien Services at their correct address. Therefore, the WCAB denied reconsideration as the petition was not filed within the statutory timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessOrder Imposing SanctionsNotice of ServiceElectronic Adjudication Management SystemWCABLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeOfficial Record of Service
References
Case No. ADJ350092 (LBO 0372531)
Regular
Apr 23, 2010

PATRICK FOOTE vs. MEDADENT BIOMEDICAL; SCIF INSURED SANTA ANA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Patrick Foote's petition for reconsideration because it was unverified and lacked proof of service, violating Labor Code sections 5902 and 5905. The Board noted that the applicant had ample opportunity to cure these defects but failed to do so. Even if the procedural defects were overlooked, the Board would have denied the petition based on the original administrative law judge's findings. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed for non-compliance with procedural requirements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalIndustrial InjuryPsycheUpper BackNeckHeadIn Pro PerUnverified Petition
References
Case No. VNO 0472812
Regular
Mar 13, 2008

MONICA GUTIERREZ vs. LOS ANGELES TIMES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision disallowing a $\$13,113.00$ lien claim by Irvine Spinal Treatment Center. The Board found the petition for reconsideration was timely due to defective service on the lien claimant. Furthermore, proof of service for the lien claimant's exhibits was found in the file, prompting the case's return to the WCJ for a decision on the merits.

Irvine Spinal Treatment CenterPinnacle Lien ServicesWCJreconsiderationlien claimantdefective serviceaddress discrepancytimely filedKunz v. Patterson Floor CoveringsZenith Insurance Company
References
Case No. ADJ7959497
Regular
May 22, 2019

ILDEFONSO ORTIZ vs. CITY FIBERS, INC., CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANY (BHHC)

This case involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed. The WCAB clarified that a petition must be *received* by the board within the statutory 25-day period, not merely mailed. Despite claims of defective service, the WCAB found proper service on the lien claimant's representative. As the petition was filed on March 28, 2019, after the jurisdictional deadline of March 18, 2019, it was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB ServiceDefective ServiceLien ClaimantOfficial Address RecordAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals BoardDismissal
References
Case No. ADJ478277 (LAO 0857795)
Regular
Jul 23, 2015

LUIS OSUNA vs. COLOR GRAPHICS, INC., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

Defendant Gallagher Bassett Services sought reconsideration of a Compromise and Release (C&R) approval, alleging an error in permanent disability advances due to oversight of attorney fees. The Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was filed more than 20 days after the C&R was issued, and the defendant failed to provide proof of actual receipt after asserting defective service. Even if considered on its merits, the Board would have denied the petition, as the calculation error was a unilateral mistake by the defendant and not grounds for setting aside the C&R.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeUntimely PetitionDefective ServiceJurisdictionPermanent Disability AdvancesUnilateral MistakeService of Process
References
Case No. ADJ10228159
Regular
Nov 14, 2016

MARIA CUEVAS vs. AG UNLIMITED, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, YORK RISK SERVICES

This case involves an untimely Petition for Reconsideration filed by applicant Maria Cuevas. The applicant's Findings and Order were served by mail and email on August 18, 2016. The deadline to file a petition for reconsideration was September 12, 2016, including five additional days for mail service. The petition was not filed until September 22, 2016. The Appeals Board found no evidence of defective service and therefore dismissed the petition as untimely.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalJurisdictionalService of ProcessOfficial Address RecordEAMSDefective ServiceWCJ ReportSupplemental Pleading
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,591 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