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. ADJ7162659
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

,JUAN MORA, vs. ,CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL and ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT; CALIFORNIA COMFORT VANS, and AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, ACE FIRE UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY/ACE GROUP, et. al.,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the challenged order was procedural and not a final determination of substantive rights. The WCAB found that an interim order striking a doctor's opinion due to ex parte communication is not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code Section 5900(a). The case was returned to the trial level for clarification of the original order, specifically whether all of the doctor's reports were stricken and if the doctor was dismissed as the Qualified Medical Examiner. This clarification is necessary for proper further proceedings and potential issuance of a replacement QME panel.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONORDER STRIKINGEX PARTE COMMUNICATIONQUALIFIED MEDICAL EXAMINER (QME)LABOR CODE SECTION 4062.3FINAL ORDERINTERIM PROCEDURAL ORDERSDISCOVERYEVIDENTIARY MATTERS
References
Case No. ADJ8050106 ADJ9468937 ADJ9154032
Regular
Nov 03, 2018

ANTONIO VAZQUEZ vs. CARSON TRAILERS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was taken from an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision issues. The order pertains to multiple cases involving Antonio Vazquez and Carson Trailers. The WCJ's order directing the use of a specific bill reviewer was deemed an evidentiary/procedural matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderEvidentiary OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. SAU10030321
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

BRIAN DUARTE vs. ALL ABOUT PAINT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Brian Duarte's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, decision, or award. A final order must determine a substantive right or liability, or a fundamental threshold issue, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary matters. The WCJ's order consolidating cases, designating a master file, staying liens, and noticing a hearing was deemed an interlocutory procedural order and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionOrder of ConsolidationDesignation of Master File
References
Case No. ADJ1 10515 (ANA 0410502)
Regular
Apr 14, 2016

SILVIA ARZATE, et al. vs. UMPCO, INC. insured by LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP, INC.

Lien claimants sought removal from a WCJ's discovery and sanctions order, arguing numerous procedural and substantive defects. The Board found the petition for removal improper, as the order contained both interim and final provisions. Despite a filing irregularity, the Board deemed the petition timely filed electronically. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the WCJ's order, finding it properly issued after reconsideration, denying all lien claimant contentions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDiscovery OrderSanctionsStay of ProceedingsLien ClaimantsLiberty Mutual Insurance GroupWCJReconsiderationFinal Order
References
Case No. ADJ6843599
Regular
Dec 03, 2012

MICHAEL FREITAS vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the Findings and Order striking the Agreed Medical Evaluator's report was an interim procedural order, not a final decision on the merits. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant from the order. The defendant's contention that the striking of a supplemental report was improper was not persuasive, as the AME's own delay contributed to the issue. A subsequent order corrected a clerical error regarding the date of the Board's initial decision.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Rule 38Untimely ReportStriking AMEInterim Procedural OrderFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5310
References
Case No. ADJ11397770
Regular
Oct 14, 2019

ROSALINA SANDOVAL vs. W.S. BALKHI CORPORATION dba MCDONALDS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involved an applicant's petition for reconsideration or removal related to a WCJ's Minute Order setting the case for trial. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition because the order was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. Furthermore, the removal petition was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration remains an adequate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural OrderInterim Procedural OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ3183513 (SJO 0248396)
Regular
Mar 21, 2012

PAULO MUNOZ vs. BARRACOS CONSTRUCTION, VIRGINIA SURETY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration because the underlying order, which denied reassignment of the judge, was not a final order subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900. The WCAB dismissed the petition for reconsideration as procedurally improper. Treating the joint petition as a request for removal under Labor Code section 5310, the WCAB denied the parties' request to reassign the case to the previous trial judge, citing the pending disciplinary matter and the lack of demonstrated prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardpetition for reconsiderationpetition for removalLabor Code section 5310Labor Code section 5900final orderinterim ordersprocedural ordervocational judgejoint petition
References
Case No. ADJ4201900 (OAK 0256105) ADJ1515754 (OAK 0212526) ADJ868359 (OAK 0282983)
Regular
Feb 27, 2017

GRACE BEATTY vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration. The petitions sought to revisit a Minute Order that placed the case off calendar, which is not a final order. A petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a final order that determines substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the WCAB found the petitions procedurally improper and dismissed them.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOff Calendar OrderCompromise and ReleaseSubsequent Injury Benefits Trust FundNon-Final OrderLabor CodeFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiability
References
Case No. ADJ9925486
Regular
Jun 10, 2016

ALEJANDRO OJEDA CHAVEZ vs. CONCO COMPANIES, ZURICH INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final, interlocutory order. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found the order did not determine substantive rights, liabilities, or a threshold issue. The petition for removal was also denied, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB stressed that petitions for reconsideration are for final decisions, while removal is the avenue for challenging interim orders.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate Remedy
References
Showing 1-10 of 9,286 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