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. ADJ8164012
Regular
Jul 01, 2013

HOSSEIN MOGHADAM vs. TESORO USA PETROLEUM, COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE

This case concerns a $\$ 250$ sanction imposed on applicant's attorney for failing to appear at a hearing. The applicant's attorney sought reconsideration, arguing a misunderstanding of "special appearance." The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning and clarifying that a "special appearance" does not excuse an attorney from a hearing, especially when made by opposing counsel. The Board emphasized that only a WCJ can excuse an appearance or grant a continuance, and cautioned the attorney against future rule violations.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsFailure to AppearSpecial AppearanceWCJApplicant's AttorneyFiduciary DutiesConflict of InterestContinuanceAppeals Board Rule 10843
References
4
Case No. ADJ10062283
Regular
Jan 08, 2016

MARIA CARVALHO vs. IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied York Risk Services Group's petition for reconsideration of a $\$ 200.00$ sanction. The sanction was imposed for York's failure to appear at a hearing for which it was properly served by mail. York failed to provide good cause for its non-appearance, and its assertion of resolving issues telephonically did not excuse the failure to appear. The Board upheld the WCJ's finding that the notice was properly served and no reasonable excuse was offered.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Jose District OfficePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsFailure to AppearGood CauseNotice of HearingService by MailElectronic Adjudication Management SystemPresumption of Receipt
References
0
Case No. ADJ4281782
Regular
Jun 07, 2012

KATHY CAPONE vs. FIRST BANK & TRUST, CHUBB GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an order dismissing lien claimant Hepps Pharmacy's lien. Hepps Pharmacy failed to appear at a lien conference and filed its objection late, offering only "inadvertence" as an excuse. The Board found that this excuse lacked credibility and did not justify relief, particularly given the claimant's repeated failures to appear and file timely objections. The Board also noted that the lien claimant cured a verification defect in its petition for reconsideration and may consider sanctions for the failure to appear.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantVerification defectSanctionsFailure to appearAdministrative Law JudgeElectronic Adjudication Management SystemNotice of Intent to DismissTimely objection
References
0
Case No. ADJ8 453844
Regular
Jun 15, 2016

ISOBETH CABRERA vs. LABOR READY, ESIS

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of a dismissed lien. The lien was dismissed because the claimant failed to appear at a lien conference and subsequently file a properly verified objection detailing the excusable neglect. While the Board granted reconsideration, it intends to affirm the dismissal unless the claimant provides a sworn affidavit from a person with personal knowledge explaining the circumstances of the failure to appear. This affidavit must sufficiently detail the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention to Dismiss Lienverified objectionCode of Civil Procedure section 473Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Beverly Hills Multispecialty Group Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.failure to appear
References
6
Case No. ADJ6545416
Regular
Jun 10, 2016

CARLOS LOPEZ vs. MUSEUM SQUARE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND INSURED

Tri-County Medical Group sought reconsideration of a dismissal for non-appearance at a lien trial, arguing their representative had a conflicting appearance and this constituted excusable neglect. While a notice of representation was filed, the Board denied reconsideration. The Board found Tri-County failed to provide adequate grounds for relief under CCP 473(b), as the representative's attendance at other matters, without prior notice to the court, did not rise to the level of excusable neglect. Therefore, the dismissal of Tri-County's lien stands.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien Claim DismissalReconsiderationNon-AppearanceLien ConferenceExcusable NeglectCode of Civil Procedure Section 473(b)Petition for ReconsiderationNotice of RepresentationWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ2810507 (AHM 0121166) ADJ3103483 (AHM 0121167) ADJ3121159 (AHM 0121165)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

MARIA DE LA MERCED vs. COLLEGE HOSPITAL, INC., COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order directing attorneys to appear at a lien conference was not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, as the remedy is extraordinary and the issue was mooted by the occurrence of the hearing and the WCJ excusing one of the attorneys. The defendant had argued the WCJ erred in mandating specific attorneys appear and claimed one was excused ex parte. Ultimately, the Board found no basis for reconsideration or removal and dismissed the defendant's filings.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeLien ConferenceFinal OrderSubstantive RightsExtraordinary RemedyIrreparable InjuryMoot
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Mensch

Henry Mensch, the debtor, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He failed to appear at his Section 524(d) discharge hearing due to a disabling stroke, leading to a legal question regarding the mandatory attendance requirement. The court reviewed relevant statutes and legislative history, as well as prior case law, to determine if a debtor could be excused from personal appearance. It concluded that a debtor with a valid, sufficient excuse, who does not intend to reaffirm any debts and is to be granted a discharge, is not required to attend the Section 524(d) hearing. The court ultimately granted Henry Mensch's discharge.

BankruptcyChapter 7Discharge HearingDebtor AppearanceSection 524(d)Statutory InterpretationLegislative IntentMedical ExcuseReaffirmation of DebtsBankruptcy Code
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ridgewood Savings Bank v. Houston (In Re Houston)

The debtor, Leonard W. Houston, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Plaintiff Ridgewood Savings Bank, holding a mortgage on the debtor's home, commenced an adversary proceeding to vacate the automatic stay to facilitate foreclosure. A default judgment was granted against the debtor for failure to appear, which he moved to set aside, citing excusable neglect due to an ankle injury. The case was remanded on appeal for further findings. The court found that while the debtor's failure to appear constituted excusable neglect, he failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense, as he lacked equity in the property and had not made mortgage payments or reimbursed the bank for taxes for an extended period, leading to a lack of adequate protection for the Bank. Consequently, the court denied the debtor's application to set aside the default judgment.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayDefault JudgmentForeclosureExcusable NeglectMeritorious DefenseAdequate ProtectionMortgage LienChapter 13Equity Cushion
References
29
Case No. ADJ1924276 ADJ1449948 ADJ1052896 ADJ1110587
Regular
Jun 15, 2018

JOSE AVINA vs. HIGH-TECH SEATING\/HARTFORD, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration after their lien was dismissed for failure to appear at a conference. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the lien claimant's claim of excusable neglect insufficient to excuse the failure to calendar the hearing. Despite procedural issues with service of the dismissal order, the Board determined the lien claimant's explanation for missing the hearing lacked a logical connection to the settlement discussions they claimed excused their oversight. A dissenting opinion argued the dismissal was invalid due to defective service and that excusable neglect should have warranted reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantExcusable NeglectPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienWCJService of ProcessDue ProcessLabor Code Section 5903
References
0
Case No. ADJ6946296
Regular
Sep 19, 2017

MICHELE KELLEY vs. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

This case involves lien claimants whose liens were dismissed for failing to appear at a hearing noticed as a status conference on attorney's fees. The claimants argued their non-appearance was justified as they believed the hearing did not concern their liens. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the claimants' failure to appear was due to excusable neglect based on the hearing's specific notice. Consequently, the dismissal orders were rescinded, and the matter was returned for further proceedings.

WCABPetitions for ReconsiderationLien ClaimsWCJStatus ConferenceLien ConferenceWCAB Rule 10770.1Failure to AppearExcusable NeglectCode of Civil Procedure section 473(b)
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,221 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