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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
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. ADJ3722657 (VNO 0537366)
Regular
May 01, 2016

Walter Centeno vs. PMR Property Services, Inc., State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Walter Centeno's petition for reconsideration. The Board found the petition was improperly filed because it sought reconsideration of a non-final, interlocutory order. Such petitions can only be taken from final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities, or threshold issues. The WCJ's decision in this case did not meet this criteria, leading to the dismissal and an admonishment to the applicant's attorney.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutory proceduralEvidentiary decisionWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ5756567
Regular
May 20, 2015

JOSEPH BRAMBLE vs. STATE FARM, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

This case involves Joseph Bramble appealing a non-final order from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB dismissed the petition because reconsideration can only be sought from a final order that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. The judge's decision addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter, not a final determination of the case. The WCAB noted that reconsideration of the Summary Rating Determination should be filed with the Administrative Director, not the WCAB.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsSummary Rating DeterminationAdministrative Director
References
Case No. ADJ1052618
Regular
May 24, 2012

HAYDEE MUNOZ vs. PAYLESS SHOESOURCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Haydee Munoz. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The petition, in this instance, sought reconsideration of a pre-trial order regarding evidence, which is considered a non-final interlocutory order. Therefore, both the petition for reconsideration and the request for removal were denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive RightLiabilityRemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code SectionsNon-FinalProcedural Decisions
References
Case No. ADJ7412305
Regular
Sep 13, 2013

KIMBERLY LINDSAY vs. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Kimberly Lindsay's petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order, not a final decision determining substantive rights. The WCAB also denied removal, adopting the administrative law judge's report and finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. This means the petition is effectively rejected, and no further review is granted at this stage. The case was then dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalRemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory DecisionEvidentiary RulingNon-finalIrreparable HarmInadequate Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ8868906
Regular
Feb 22, 2016

MICHELLE CANCHOLA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed because it was filed from a non-final order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) clarified that reconsideration is only available for final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. An interlocutory procedural decision, such as a notice of intent to dismiss a lien for failure to appear at a conference, is not a final order. While the petition was dismissed, it will be considered as a timely objection to the notice of intent to dismiss.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsLien claimantNotice of Intent to dismiss
References
Case No. ADJ9534817
Regular
Mar 08, 2016

AARON HENDERSON vs. FAIRVIEW FORD, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Aaron Henderson's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. A petition for reconsideration is only permitted from a final order that determines substantive rights, liabilities, or a fundamental threshold issue. The WCJ's decision in this case addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter, thus it was not a final order. Furthermore, the WCAB found no basis for removal, as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderWCJ reportSubstantive right or liabilityThreshold issueInterlocutory proceduralEvidentiary decisionsRemovalSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
Case No. ADJ1047343
Regular
Dec 17, 2015

HELEN WILSON vs. CHEMOIL CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on the fact that the petition sought reconsideration of a non-final order, which is not permissible under California Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903. The Board clarified that only final orders, which determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, are subject to reconsideration. The WCJ's decision in this instance was deemed an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary ruling, thus not a final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ10211772
Regular
Dec 06, 2016

KELLY TUCKETT vs. CITY OF BELLFLOWER, YORK ROSEVILLE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Kelly Tuckett against the City of Bellflower and York Roseville. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was filed in response to a non-final order. California law dictates that reconsideration can only be sought from final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. The WCAB found the administrative law judge's decision addressed only an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter, not a final determination.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutory decisionProcedural decisionEvidentiary decisionWCJ report
References
Showing 1-10 of 11,374 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