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. 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. GRO 0030299 GRO 0033215 GRO 0034583
Regular
Jan 24, 2008

DEBRA A. FLORES vs. FACTORY 2 U STORES, INC.; ROYAL SUN & ALLIANCE, Adjusted by INTEGRATED INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's argument that the WCJ erred in applying the *Wilkinson* doctrine for combining permanent disability awards in successive injury cases. The Board rescinded the previous award, remanding the case for further development of the record and reanalysis under the *Benson* en banc decision. This decision clarifies that *Benson* mandates apportionment based on causation, effectively superseding the *Wilkinson* rule for cases decided after SB 899.

SB 899Wilkinson doctrineBenson v. The Permanente Medical Groupapportionmentcausationsuccessive injuriespermanent disabilityindustrial injuryretail storesupervisor
References
Case No. ADJ575595 (SRO 0118927) ADJ2965361 (SRO 0122685)
Regular
May 21, 2009

JEFFREY DOTY vs. CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC.

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior workers' compensation award. The applicant argued the $34\%$ permanent disability rating was incorrect, specifically regarding the overlap of his hand injuries and MRSA infection. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the dates of injury in the original findings. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the original award but amended the findings to reflect the correct dates of injury for the left hand/bilateral upper extremities/MRSA and the right elbow injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCircuit City StoresMRSAPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationFindings of FactJoint Findings Award and OrderSales ClerkIndustrial InjuryLeft Hand
References
Case No. ADJ976410 (SDO 0364068)
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

DIANNA BALDWIN vs. ROSS STORES, INC.

This case before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board involves Dianna Baldwin (Applicant) and Ross Stores, Inc. (Defendant). The Board has issued an order dismissing the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal is based on the Board's review of the record and incorporates the reasons provided in the administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation.

Petition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoss StoresInc.Dianna BaldwinCase No. ADJ976410SDO 0364068
References
Case No. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685), ADJ3521523 (WCK 0322592), ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
May 16, 2014

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Pamela Zeilstra against Target Stores and Sedgwick CMS. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely and not filed from a final order, as required by Labor Code section 5900. The Board clarified that interlocutory procedural orders, which do not determine substantive rights, are not subject to reconsideration. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely PetitionFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiability DeterminationWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ10892681, ADJ10892685
Regular
Sep 26, 2018

ISABEL VALDEZ vs. ROSS STORES, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a withdrawn Petition for Reconsideration filed by an unnamed petitioner in the matter of Isabel Valdez v. Ross Stores, Inc. and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition as a result of its withdrawal. No substantive legal issues were decided as the matter was resolved by the petitioner's action. The Board's order is dated September 26, 2018.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawnDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRoss StoresArch Insurance CompanySedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ10892681ADJ10892685San Diego District Office
References
Case No. ADJ6999635
Regular
Jan 18, 2013

MARIA WELLS vs. WAL-MART STORES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves Maria Wells seeking reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release for her workers' compensation claim. The Board dismissed her petitions because they were filed significantly outside the mandatory 20-day (plus 5 days for mailing) statutory deadline. Applicant's claim was for industrial injuries to her neck, upper extremities, back, and other body systems, sustained while employed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. As a result, the Board found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely petitions.

Compromise and ReleasePetitions for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjurySales AssociateStockerNeck InjuryUpper Extremities Injury
References
Case No. ADJ8673054
Regular
Nov 01, 2016

BERNADETTE LEVSTIK vs. ACOSTA SALES AND MARKETING, THE HARTFORD

Here's a summary for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an Opinion and Order dismissing a Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Levstik v. Acosta Sales and Marketing. The dismissal occurred because the party who filed the petition voluntarily withdrew it. Consequently, the WCAB is no longer considering the appeal of the September 2, 2016 Findings of Fact, Order, and Award. The matter is now concluded with the dismissal of the reconsideration petition.

Petition for Reconsideration withdrawnDismissal OrderFindings of Fact Order and AwardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeADJ8673054ACOSTA SALES AND MARKETINGTHE HARTFORDBERNADETTE LEVSTIKVan Nuys District Office
References
Case No. ADJ7535016, ADJ7536297, ADJ8099855
Regular
Sep 05, 2013

DAVID MURILLO-RAMOS vs. NATIONAL RETAIL TRANSPORTATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal is based on two procedural defects: the petition was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902, and there was no proof of proper service under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10565(d). The Board cites prior case law supporting dismissal for these types of violations. Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by David Murillo-Ramos against National Retail Transportation and Travelers Insurance is formally rejected.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalVerificationLabor Code section 5902Proof of ServiceCal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10565(d)WCJ ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ9070509
Regular
Jan 05, 2018

GIHAN MOSAAD vs. WALMART STORES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case concerns the admissibility of store surveillance video footage from the applicant's date of injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, an extraordinary remedy, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board agreed with the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a future decision proves adverse. The WCJ determined the video was relevant to the nature, extent, and apportionment of the applicant's injury, noting it shows the applicant using a cane and stocking shelves before being removed on a stretcher. The Board concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate that removal was necessary before a final decision.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmissibility of VideoStore Surveillance VideoDate of InjuryWorkers' Compensation JudgeFindings & Order
References
Showing 1-10 of 327 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