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. ADJ1500144 [SAC 0290200] ADJ820065 [SAC 0352087] ADJ1538813 [MON 0309956] ADJ3751110 [MON 0326164]
Regular
Nov 24, 2008

PARVIN OLFATI, PATTY OLFATI vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely because it was improperly filed with a district office instead of directly with the Board, and even if timely, would have been denied on the merits. The Board also denied the applicant's petition for disqualification of the judge, finding no evidence of bias, as any misstatement about the number of cases was likely due to the judge's specific assignment. Finally, the applicant was put on notice regarding potential sanctions for future intemperate language and the possibility of being declared a vexatious litigant for repeatedly filing meritless disqualification petitions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for DisqualificationUntimely FilingFormer Rule 10840Adverse RulingsBiasPrejudiceMandatory Settlement ConferenceTrial
References
9
Case No. ADJ15495436
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

Calvin Grigsby vs. Grigsby and Associates, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered two petitions from the applicant, Calvin Grigsby: a December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal, and a December 24, 2024 Petition for Removal. The Board dismissed the reconsideration aspect of the December 9th petition as it pertained to non-final orders and denied removal, finding no demonstration of irreparable harm. The subsequent December 24th petition was also dismissed as it challenged the same December 4, 2024 orders. The Board also noted the applicant's failure to comply with page limits for the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNonfinal OrdersLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental Pleadings
References
15
Case No. ADJ7768905
Regular
Sep 13, 2016

TRACEY LOMBARDI vs. SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition, which sought disqualification of the administrative law judge, removal, and reconsideration. The disqualification petition was denied as untimely, filed after the swearing of the first witness. The removal petition failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Finally, the reconsideration petition was dismissed because it did not seek review of a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5311Appeals Board Rule 10452Untimely PetitionExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ3808038 (LAO 0819022)
Regular
Feb 11, 2010

NICOLAS F. BENINKOFF (Deceased), LORENA BENINKOFF (Widow) vs. DARCO METAL SURFACING, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied petitions for removal and reconsideration from lien claimants and the defendant, and denied the applicant's reconsideration petition. Lien claimants Kan and Ace's petition for removal was denied as they failed to show substantial prejudice, and their reconsideration petition was dismissed as the prior order was not final. The applicant's reconsideration petition was denied because her claim for home healthcare services was deemed an untimely lien claim under Labor Code section 4903.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationLien ClaimantsUntimely LienLabor Code section 4903.5Labor Code section 5405Home Healthcare ServicesMedical TreatmentTransportation Expenses
References
5
Case No. ADJ6877517
Regular
Feb 10, 2017

LILIANA PEREZ vs. E. & J. GALLOW WINERY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant winery's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued that the applicant's prior petition to reopen initiated all subsequent proceedings, including their own petition to terminate benefits. However, the Board found this contention meritless as the applicant's petition sought only new and further disability, not termination, and was withdrawn before trial. Labor Code section 4607, regarding unsuccessful proceedings to terminate awards, thus applied only to the defendant's actions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityTerminate Medical AwardLabor Code 4607Unsuccessful TerminationInitiated ProceedingsWithdrawal of PetitionWCJ ReportAppeals Board Rule 10848
References
0
Case No. SBR 0271963; SBR 0247442; SBR 0247444; SBR 0247445; VNO 0299465; LAO 0761513; LAO 0761514; LAO 0761515; LAO 0761516; LAO 0761517; LAO 0761518; LAO 0761519; LAO 0761520; LAO 0761521; LAO 0761522; LAO 0761523; LAO 0761524; LAO 0761525; LAO 0761526; LAO 0761527; LAO 0761528; LAO 0761529; LAO 0761530
Regular
Dec 10, 2007

EDAR Y. ROGLER vs. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. JOHNSON; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed an attorney's petition seeking to remove or disqualify Judge Kacey Joseph Keating from presiding over her cases. The WCAB found the petition for removal procedurally improper and the petition for automatic reassignment untimely, as prior hearings involving the judge had occurred. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the disqualification petition because the applicant failed to provide legally sufficient grounds or a required affidavit.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for Automatic ReassignmentPetition for DisqualificationWCJLabor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452Code of Civil Procedure Section 641Attorney Applicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ6861886
Regular
Feb 01, 2012

Tracy Huiras vs. Nestle USA, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration, disqualification, and removal concerning a WCJ's order compelling a claims adjuster to testify at a lien trial. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the order was not final. While the petition for disqualification was denied due to insufficient evidence of bias, the petition for removal was granted. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order compelling witness testimony, as the lien claimant bears the burden of proof and must produce their own witnesses.

WCABRemovalDisqualificationMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJLien ClaimClaims AdjusterPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for DisqualificationPetition for Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ8381778
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

GERALD BROWN vs. GOLDEN GATE PETROLEUM, LIBERTY MUTUAL

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Gerald Brown, filed a Petition for Removal and a Petition for Disqualification against Golden Gate Petroleum and Liberty Mutual. The defendants subsequently withdrew both petitions after entering into a Compromise and Release agreement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both petitions as moot, as they were withdrawn and the settlement was approved by the WCJ. Therefore, no further action will be taken on the dismissed petitions.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationCompromise and ReleaseWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ8381778mootwithdrawn petitionsdismissaladministrative law judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ300431 (FRE 0203618) ADJ1896245 (FRE 0203619) ADJ3576423 (FRE 0203620)
Regular
Jan 14, 2014

Sherrill Perkins vs. Fresno Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal but granted her petition for reconsideration. Applicant's 40-page petition for reconsideration violated the 25-page limit and lacked good cause for exceeding it. Therefore, the Board will dismiss the petition unless a compliant one is refiled within ten days, while simultaneously addressing the attorney's separate fee reconsideration. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances to justify removal and will proceed with reconsideration after compliance with filing rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWCJcumulative traumatemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityapportionmentpenalties
References
2
Case No. ADJ6991789
Regular
Oct 19, 2010

BONNIE MCCLINTIC vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding a finding that the applicant did not sustain an industrial injury. The applicant's own petition for reconsideration, arguing the evidence supported her claim of injury to her psyche, low back, neck, and jaw, was denied. The Board granted the applicant's request to file supplemental petitions in response to the proceedings. The defendant's initial petition was dismissed because they withdrew it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDepartment of Motor VehiclesState Compensation Insurance FundFindings of FactPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionWCJ ReportApplicantDefendantIndustrial Injury
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 15,140 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