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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.)

Keene Corporation, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed an adversary proceeding against 27 law firms, alleging they forced Keene into bankruptcy through fraudulent asbestos-related tort claims. The defendant law firms moved to withdraw the reference of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, citing complex federal statutes (Antitrust and RICO) and a jury trial right. Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg also appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a civil contempt proceeding. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, denied the defendants' motion to withdraw the reference, deeming it premature, and dismissed LPK's interlocutory appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling on contempt. The court determined the adversary proceeding was non-core and did not warrant mandatory or discretionary withdrawal at this early stage.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingWithdrawal of ReferenceInterlocutory AppealCivil ContemptAntitrust LawRICO ActAsbestos LitigationFederal JurisdictionCore vs. Non-Core Proceedings
References
25
Case No. ADJ8204664
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

MARIA MUNOZ vs. FLOREZ FAMILY, INC. dba McDONALD'S RESTAURANT

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an interlocutory order by a WCJ regarding the proper selection of a medical panel. The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration, finding that interlocutory orders are not subject to reconsideration. Additionally, the Board granted removal on its own motion due to the defense attorney's failure to respond to a notice of intent to impose sanctions. Consequently, the defense attorney was ordered to pay a $100 sanction to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionsDefense AttorneyFindings and AwardFindings and OrderLabor Code section 4062.2Labor Code section 5900Interlocutory OrderRemoval
References
8
Case No. ADJ6913723
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

ZACHARY GRAM vs. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order changing venue was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board then granted removal on its own motion to clarify the record and resolve conflicting procedural orders regarding the venue change. Specifically, the Board vacated prior orders, including an order granting a venue change and a subsequent order rescinding it. The matter is returned to the trial level for a determination on the defendant's request for a venue change.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationVenueLabor Code Section 5310Interlocutory OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmRescind
References
7
Case No. ADJ4432553
Regular
May 06, 2014

MARTIN ZAVALA vs. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, QBC, DAVID BERNS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by Martin Zavala. The WCAB clarified that reconsideration can only be sought for final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities. Interlocutory procedural orders, such as those concerning evidence, discovery, or trial settings, are not final orders and therefore not subject to reconsideration. Consequently, Zavala's petition, likely challenging such an interlocutory order, was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationInterlocutory OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityPre-trial OrdersEvidenceDiscoveryVenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
5
Case No. ADJ7111052
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

MARTHA BURTON vs. PARADISE BAKERS & CAFÉ, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Martha Burton's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB determined that reconsideration can only be sought for final orders, not interlocutory procedural orders. Burton challenged a Notice of Intention (NIT) Re: Sanctions, which the WCAB classified as an interlocutory order that does not resolve substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as it was not a final order subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightsLiabilitiesAdministrative Law JudgePre-trial OrdersNotice of Intention
References
5
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
4
Case No. ADJ3378722 (SBR 0326546) ADJ1273783 (SBR 0335209)
Regular
Mar 04, 2009

VICTOR YSLAS vs. CITY OF BARSTOW, Permissibly Self-Insured, CORVEL CORPORATION (Adjusting Agent)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to the defendant, City of Barstow, regarding an interlocutory order. The Board found that although titled "interlocutory," the WCJ's December 30, 2008 order addressed substantive rights and liabilities, making it a final order subject to reconsideration. The Board rescinded the prior order because the WCJ failed to provide a summary of evidence and reasoning as required by Labor Code section 5313, and the medical treatment award was ambiguous. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationInterlocutory OrderFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 4656(c)(1)Temporary DisabilityMedical TreatmentIndustrial InjuryRight KneeWCJ
References
6
Case No. ADJ8081723
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

BEATRIZ DELGADO vs. INDUSPAC CALIFORNIA, INC./WESTERN FOAM PACKING PRODUCTS, PINNACLE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Beatriz Delgado. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition. The WCAB reasoned that reconsideration can only be sought for final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities, not for interlocutory procedural orders. Pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, or venue are considered interlocutory and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityPre-trial OrdersEvidenceDiscoverySetting for Trial
References
5
Case No. ADJ10344600
Regular
Aug 02, 2018

LUCIA GRADINARIU vs. FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., BERKLEY NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration and removal. The WCAB found that the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the December 28, 2016 Findings and Orders was procedurally defective as it was unverified and lacked proper proof of service. The Board also determined that the applicant's petition challenging the subsequent Order Taking Off Calendar was an attempt to seek reconsideration of an interlocutory order, which is improper. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from the interlocutory order.

AOE/COEPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Taking Off CalendarFindings and OrdersSubstantial Medical EvidenceUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceCumulative InjuryDate of Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ356153 (LAO 0887403)
Regular
May 21, 2009

SANTIAGO IBARRA vs. ABM INDUSTRIES, INC., Administered By ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed defendant ABM Industries' Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order compelling a new QME panel was interlocutory, not a final determination of substantive rights. The WCAB also denied defendant's request for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify the extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's prior order had denied defendant's request to compel a medical evaluation and ordered a new QME panel due to concerns about defendant's advocacy letter to the original QME. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning, deeming the interlocutory procedural order not subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardABM IndustriesInc.ESISSantiago IbarraPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME paneladvocacy letter
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 24,105 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