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. 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. ADJ9274305
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

SALVADOR REYES vs. AVP&H A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Salvador Reyes's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot, as the underlying issue regarding a specific Qualified Medical Examiner appeared to be resolved. Both petitions were denied as they did not address substantive rights or liabilities. The order reflects standard practice for non-final and moot petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityMootnessQMEOrder to CompelMeet and Confer
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. ADJ833288 (LBO 0385383)
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

MARTIN VALDEZ vs. NATURE'S TREE SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order taking the case off calendar, arguing their attorney was not properly served with prior dismissal notices. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because an order taking a case off calendar is interlocutory and not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board denied the request for removal, stating the applicant had not shown substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant must address the prior dismissal order at the trial level before seeking appellate review.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderDismissal OrderSubstitution of AttorneysLack of ProsecutionService of ProcessInterlocutory OrderFinal Order
References
Case No. ADJ8743098
Regular
Feb 07, 2017

REGULO HERNANDEZ AGUILAR vs. PRIMA PIZZA d/b/a DOMINOS PIZZA, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought to overturn an order compelling the deposition of their claims adjuster, arguing it was intended to harass. However, the WCAB found the order was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required for removal.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ Orderdepositionclaims adjusterPetition to QuashPetition to Compelfinal orderinterlocutory order
References
Case No. ADJ11377839 ADJ11377840
Regular
Jul 09, 2019

OLIVIA BARAJAS vs. JUSTIN VINEYARDS & WINERY, LLC, BROADSPIRE

The applicant sought reconsideration or removal of an order compelling her attendance at a deposition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely and denied the petition for removal. The WCAB found the order compelling attendance was an interlocutory discovery order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for the extraordinary remedy of removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceDepositionWCJDiscovery OrderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
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
Case No. ADJ6621190
Regular
Jul 11, 2011

DEANNA CARROLL vs. WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration of two interlocutory orders: one denying a venue change and another compelling a further deposition. The WCAB found that neither order constituted a final decision that could be reconsidered under Labor Code Section 5900. Applicant's procedural arguments regarding bias and lack of good cause were therefore not addressed on their merits at this stage. The WCAB also denied the petitions for removal, adopting the WCJ's reasoning, and warned the applicant about improper document submission.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJVenue OrderDeposition OrderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor Code Section 5900WCAB Rule 10842
References
Case No. ADJ 6962762, ADJ4127525 (SBR 0330147), ADJ9551358
Regular
Feb 19, 2016

HARMEET KAUR vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

The applicant filed two petitions challenging orders compelling attendance at a deposition and a PQME. The Appeals Board dismissed the first petition as it sought reconsideration of a non-final order. The Board then granted removal on the second petition, setting aside the order compelling the PQME attendance due to potential prejudice from an alleged agreed medical evaluation. Reconsideration was denied for both petitions as they addressed interlocutory matters.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionOrder Compelling PQMEWCJAgreed Medical Evaluation (AME)Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderRule 10859
References
Case No. LBO 0384614
Regular
Jan 23, 2008

CAROLINA SALES vs. ROSS STORES, INC. and XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, MJO STAFFING and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order vacating a Compromise and Release (C&R). The Board then granted reconsideration on its own motion to rescind the original C&R approval. This action affirmed the WCJ's decision to vacate the C&R, effectively returning the parties to their pre-settlement status, due to the applicant's expressed confusion and potential lack of full understanding of the agreement's terms.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder VacatingFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900Good CauseUnverified PetitionIndustrial InjuryApplicant's UnderstandingWCJ Discretion
References
Showing 1-10 of 8,619 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