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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. 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. ADJ7176475
Regular
Nov 04, 2012

OSCAR ALVARADO vs. BROTHERS TOWING OF NORCO/ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration and granted the defendant's petition. The Board affirmed the original decision but amended Finding of Fact No. 4 to remove the determination that home health care on a trial basis was necessary. This means the applicant's claim for trial home health care was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportAdministrative Law JudgePetition to amend decisionFinding of Facthome health caretrial basisrescinding determinationDefendant's Petition for Reconsideration
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
Case No. ADJ 1153404
Regular
Sep 04, 2008

Barbara Clark vs. SAN JOAQUIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM

Applicant's petition for reconsideration is dismissed as untimely. Reconsideration is granted for Dr. Tepper's petition, with his deposition fee set at $250/hour, allowing him to contest the fee afterward under Labor Code section 5307.6(c).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationDismissing ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code section 5903(b)FraudDiscovery Orders
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. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034)
Regular
Mar 25, 2014

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT FOOD SERVICES, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., BROADSPIRE

This case involves applicant Kristian Von Ritzhoff's petition for reconsideration of a prior Board decision. The Board had previously modified an administrative law judge's order, shifting the responsibility for paying a sanction and costs from the defendant to the applicant. The applicant's current petition sought reconsideration of this modified order, but the Board found it was a successive petition without a new grievance. Because the applicant was not "aggrieved" by the modification to the payment method and had not been granted relief previously sought, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissing PetitionOpinion and OrderGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderWorkers' compensation administrative law judgeSanction and costsLabor Code section 5900
References
Case No. ADJ10793351
Regular
Sep 23, 2019

PHILLIP PUCCIARELLO vs. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, permissibly self-insured dba ALLIED, UNIVERSAL SECURITY, ESIS CHATSWORTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying dismissal was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted the defendant's petition for removal. The WCAB found the defendant's initial notice of intent to dismiss was properly served and rescinded the WCJ's denial of dismissal. The matter was returned to the WCJ to issue a ten-day notice of intention to dismiss for failure to prosecute, as defendant's independent investigation of mail delivery was improper.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10582Petition to DismissFailure to ProsecuteOrder Denying Petition for DismissalApplicantDefendantAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ8096826
Regular
Dec 21, 2016

KHANG VU vs. CITY OF RICHMOND, ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior decision that discovery closed on a specific date, as the defendant's petition for reconsideration was improper for an interlocutory order. A Compromise and Release agreement between the parties ultimately resolved all issues arising from the applicant's injury. The WCAB dismissed both the defendant's petition for reconsideration and their petition for removal, finding no prejudice or irreparable harm remained. The matter was returned to the trial level for consideration of the settlement agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationDiscovery ClosureDue ProcessApplicantDefendantCompromise and Release
References
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
Showing 1-10 of 16,749 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