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. 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. ADJ9139200
Regular
Dec 11, 2015

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Matthew Bakes' petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be based on "final" orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions. The WCJ's decision at issue here only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter. Thus, it was not a final order, and the petition was procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsRemoval
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 1940

President & Directors of Manhattan Co. v. Janowitz

The court amended its previous decision from July 2, 1940, concerning the will of Julius Janowitz. The interlocutory decree was significantly modified by striking several original paragraphs and adding a new decretal paragraph. This new addition declared Article Third of Julius Janowitz's will as invalid, unlawful, and ineffective for transferring real and personal property to the plaintiff and its co-trustee. As thus modified, the interlocutory decree was affirmed, with costs awarded to the defendant-appellant Emma S. Janowitz against the plaintiff-respondent. Justice Johnston authored the opinion, with Justices Lazansky, Hagarty, and Carswell concurring, while Justice Close dissented.

Will ContestInterlocutory DecreeDecree ModificationProperty TransferEstate LawAppellate DecisionArticle InvalidityTrust AgreementCosts AwardedJudicial Opinion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Picard v. Katz

The plaintiff, Irving H. Picard (the 'Trustee'), moved for an immediate interlocutory appeal of a previous Opinion and Order dated September 27, 2011. This prior decision dismissed certain claims and narrowed others against defendants involved in the Madoff Securities fraud. The Trustee sought certification for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or entry of final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). District Judge Jed S. Rakoff denied the motion, emphasizing the federal bias against interlocutory appeals and stating that an immediate appeal would delay, not advance, the litigation given an upcoming trial. The Court also highlighted the importance of a complete factual record for proper appellate review. Despite the denial, the Court sua sponte partially reinstated Count 9 of the Amended Complaint, allowing avoidance of subsequent transfers under § 550(a) where initial transfers were avoidable under § 548(a)(1)(A).

Interlocutory AppealFinal Judgment RuleBankruptcy CodeFraudulent TransfersPonzi SchemeMadoff SecuritiesSecurities ContractSafe HarborRule 54(b)28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)
References
11
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. ADJ8069933
Regular
Sep 08, 2014

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ vs. S & S HARDWOOD FLOOR SUPPLY, GUARD INSURANCE GROUP, INC., AMGUARD INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Francisco Hernandez's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order, but rather from interlocutory procedural decisions. The Board also denied his Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. This decision upholds the established procedural rules for appeals in workers' compensation cases.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightLiabilityLab. CodeCal. Code Regs.Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge
References
8
Case No. ADJ7022015
Regular
Jan 28, 2013

SALVADOR SANCHEZ vs. BENTLEY PRINCE STREET, THE HARTFORD, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This order dismisses applicant Salvador Sanchez's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights, but rather from interlocutory procedural decisions. The Board further denies the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Applicant's procedural requests were deemed non-final and therefore not subject to reconsideration or removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNon-FinalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
8
Case No. ADJ11077369
Regular
May 24, 2019

TRANSITO HERNANDEZ vs. READY PAC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSEETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final, interlocutory procedural order. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant failed to demonstrate that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the Board upheld the WCJ's decision regarding the procedural issue.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONPETITION FOR REMOVALFINAL ORDERINTERLOCUTORY DECISIONSUBSTANTIVE RIGHTTHRESHOLD ISSUEIRREPARABLE HARMSUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICEEXTRAORDINARY REMEDY
References
6
Case No. ADJ4331338 (SRO 0140579)
Regular
Oct 01, 2008

TAMI WARE vs. SMILE CARE DENTAL GROUP, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE Administered By AIG CLAIM SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The Board also denied the applicant's request for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant's contentions regarding trial readiness and discovery closure were deemed unfounded based on the medical evaluations and procedural history.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightsLiabilityPre-trial OrdersMedical EvaluationLabor Code Section 5310
References
8
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,824 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