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. ADJ5756567
Regular
May 20, 2015

JOSEPH BRAMBLE vs. STATE FARM, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

This case involves Joseph Bramble appealing a non-final order from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB dismissed the petition because reconsideration can only be sought from a final order that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. The judge's decision addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter, not a final determination of the case. The WCAB noted that reconsideration of the Summary Rating Determination should be filed with the Administrative Director, not the WCAB.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsSummary Rating DeterminationAdministrative Director
References
Case No. MON 0316299
Regular
Mar 20, 2008

ROBERT WYATT vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Finally, the WCAB ordered a technical correction to the headings of the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision to properly reflect the Appeals Board's authority.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightLiability DeterminationPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ's ReportJudicial Authority
References
Case No. ADJ8293635
Regular
Dec 18, 2014

JANICE CONCANNON vs. CARVISTA/NOVATER, EMPLOYERS' COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant. The WCAB found that the WCJ's interlocutory order, which took the matter off calendar for further discovery, did not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy after a final order is issued. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was dismissed.

Petition for RemovalWCJ interlocutory orderoff calendarfurther discoveryno final determinationsubstantive issuesignificant prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedy
References
Case No. ADJ426447 (RDG 0129495)
Regular
Jul 16, 2010

Shane Guest vs. Barrett Business Services

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as he was not aggrieved by a final order. The applicant sought to set aside a settlement concerning the Employment Development Department's (EDD) lien, arguing it was made in error. However, the Board found that the WCJ had not yet made a final determination on the EDD lien, which is a prerequisite for the Board to have jurisdiction to approve or disapprove such a settlement. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for a final determination of the EDD's lien.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalEDD LienTrial LevelFinal DeterminationTemporary DisabilityEmployment Development DepartmentStipulationDeferred Lien
References
Case No. ADJ10211772
Regular
Dec 06, 2016

KELLY TUCKETT vs. CITY OF BELLFLOWER, YORK ROSEVILLE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Kelly Tuckett against the City of Bellflower and York Roseville. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was filed in response to a non-final order. California law dictates that reconsideration can only be sought from final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. The WCAB found the administrative law judge's decision addressed only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter, not a final determination.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutory decisionProcedural decisionEvidentiary decisionWCJ report
References
Case No. ADJ292246 (SFO 0505632) ADJ2419734 (SFO 0504906) ADJ2647713 (SFO 0504908)
Regular
Jan 25, 2018

ANNA HONG vs. SBC INTERNET SERVICES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Anna Hong's petition for reconsideration because she was not aggrieved by a final or non-final order. The issues raised, including home health care and the discoverability of an investigator's report, were determined to be pre-trial matters not yet decided. The Board emphasized that a petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a final order that determines substantive rights or liabilities or a threshold issue. Since no decisions were issued at the hearing Ms. Hong referenced, her petition lacked a basis.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartyFinal OrderNon-Final OrderThreshold IssueExpedited HearingHome Health CareRequest for Authorization (RFA)Primary Treating Physician
References
Case No. ADJ3570998 (AHM 0132124)
Regular
Jun 21, 2013

MARCOS MEZA vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the rule that reconsideration is only permissible from a "final" order that determines substantive rights or liabilities. The Board found the challenged order to be interlocutory and procedural, not a final determination. Therefore, it did not meet the criteria for a valid petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiability DeterminationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLab. CodeRymer v. HaglerKaiser Foundation Hospitals v. WCABMaranian v. WCAB
References
Case No. ADJ9241653
Regular
Aug 23, 2016

DAYANIRA MENDOZA vs. FIELD FRESH FOODS, INC., PSI

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. A petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a final order that determines substantive rights or a fundamental threshold issue. The WCJ's decision in this case addressed only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter, not a final determination of liability or rights. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as improperly filed.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutory procedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsRymer v. Hagler
References
Case No. ADJ11665754
Regular
Mar 17, 2020

MELISSA RIVERA vs. AURORA LAS ENCINAS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, TRAVELERS COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order. A valid petition must address a "final" order that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or a fundamental threshold issue. In this case, the January 10, 2020 decision was a "Findings and Order," not a final award. Therefore, the defendant was not an aggrieved party from a final decision, and their petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartyFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiability DeterminationThreshold IssueFindings and OrderAwardAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ4265715
Regular
Jul 14, 2010

ARNIE K. RAGLAND vs. METROPOLITAN PROVISION, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) benefits after the statutory basis for these benefits was repealed. The applicant's entitlement to VRMA from a specific date forward was established by a Rehabilitation Unit Determination that became final before the repeal. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior adverse finding, and remanded the case for determination of the specific VRMA amounts due based on that final Determination. Therefore, the applicant's right to VRMA from the date of the final Determination vested before the statute's repeal.

VRMAVocational RehabilitationVested RightLabor Code 139.5RepealRehabilitation UnitDeterminationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,137 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