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. ADJ3413739
Regular
Oct 24, 2013

YOLANDA OSUNA vs. MARRIOTT HOTEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by lien claimants and their representatives, Innovative Medical Management (IMM) and Louis Heard, as untimely. The Board also removed the case to itself and gave notice of its intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against IMM and Heard. This action stems from IMM and Heard filing a frivolous, untimely petition containing misrepresentations about the timing of lien withdrawals, following the original imposition of sanctions by the WCJ for their failure to appear at a scheduled lien trial. The Board noted IMM and Heard's extensive history of similar sanctionable conduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalSanctionsHearing RepresentativesInnovative Medical ManagementLouis HeardLien ClaimantsLabor Code Section 5813Frivolous Petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ8693165
Regular
Sep 03, 2013

JEREMY VALENCIA vs. AGI PUBLISHING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an order imposing sanctions against the injured worker's attorney. This was due to improper service of the sanctions order and lack of sufficient notice, preventing the attorney from an adequate opportunity to be heard. The WCAB denied the petition for disqualification of the judge, finding no evidence of bias. The petition concerning the notice of intention to dismiss the case was dismissed as it was not a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsNotice of Intention to DismissWCJInjured WorkerCounselService of ProcessOfficial Address Record
References
5
Case No. ADJ11155531
Regular
Apr 01, 2020

PATRICK ALLEN vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for removal, rescinded an order compelling attendance at a medical examination, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the order violated due process because the applicant did not receive prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. The WCJ issued the order as a "walk-through document" without adhering to the required notice of intention procedure. The Board emphasized that due process requires notice and an opportunity to challenge adverse actions before they are issued.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to be HeardPetition to Compel AttendanceAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Walk-through documentWCAB Rule 10789(h)
References
5
Case No. ADJ7233959 ADJ7233792
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

SALVADOR LANDIN vs. STAFFMARK INVESTMENT, CHARTIS SAN DIEGO

This case involves an attorney's petition for reconsideration after an administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered them to pay defendant costs and a $\$500$ sanction. The applicant's attorney argued they did not have adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the sanctions. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's orders, and returned the matter for further proceedings because the orders were issued without proper notice and opportunity to present a defense, violating due process. The Board emphasized that sanctions require proper procedure, including a notice of intent and a hearing.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSALVADOR LANDINSTAFFMARK INVESTMENTCHARTIS SAN DIEGOPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONWCJSANCTIONCOSTSLABOR CODE §5813DUE PROCESS
References
0
Case No. ADJ3974204
Regular
May 05, 2015

MARIA CORTINA vs. EDGEWATER CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, EVEREST NATIONAL COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's Petition for Reconsideration challenging a WCJ's order to quash deposition subpoenas. The defendant argues they were denied due process as they received no notice of the petition and thus no opportunity to oppose it. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order was not final but granted removal. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order, finding the defendant was improperly denied notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that discovery was stipulated to remain open.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to QuashDeposition SubpoenaProtective OrderLien ClaimantStipulationDiscoveryDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to Be Heard
References
7
Case No. ADJ10717926
Regular
Aug 23, 2018

GUADALUPE SEDANO vs. GEO PACIFIC SERVICES, INC., REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INS. CO., ADMINISTERED BY BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the dismissal order because the record lacked proof of service for key notices. Applicant's case was dismissed for failing to object to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, but the Board found the applicant may not have received proper notice of crucial hearings or the dismissal notice itself. Due process requires reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, which the incomplete record here calls into question. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record on service issues.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalNotice of Intention to DismissExcusable NeglectMandatory Settlement ConferenceProof of ServiceDue ProcessGood CauseService of NoticeWCAB Rule 10500
References
12
Case No. ADJ8423237
Regular
Nov 09, 2016

RUBEN SALINAS vs. MAGALY CORPORATION, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the lien claimant received due process despite the absence of a formal Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions. The Board found that the lien claimant had multiple opportunities to respond to the defendant's detailed petitions for sanctions and costs, including a hearing and subsequent amended filings. Therefore, the lien claimant had adequate notice and the opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process requirements.

WCABPetition for Reconsideration DeniedLien ClaimantDue ProcessNotice and Opportunity to be HeardPetition for SanctionsLabor Code § 5813WCJ Report AdoptedSanctions IssueAmended Petition for Sanctions
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

In re John T.

Holliswood Care Center appealed an order awarding attorneys' fees against it in a guardianship proceeding for John T. The Supreme Court had initially found John T. competent but awarded fees to the petitioner, temporary guardian, and Mental Hygiene Legal Service, citing Holliswood's "reprehensible actions" in detaining Mr. T. Holliswood argued it was not given notice that the guardianship hearing would determine attorney's fees against it and was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence regarding its actions, which it claimed were based on safety concerns, not Mr. T.'s competency. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that the Supreme Court improperly proceeded with the hearing and improvidently awarded attorneys' fees without proper notice and opportunity to be heard for Holliswood. Furthermore, the court found that the award of attorneys' fees against Holliswood was not authorized by Mental Hygiene Law article 81 nor justified under common law exceptions.

GuardianshipAttorneys' FeesMental Hygiene LawIncapacitated PersonAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessNotice RequirementNursing Home DetentionElderly CareCompetency Evaluation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cagle v. Judge Motor Corp.

The claimant, on behalf of her deceased father's estate, appealed two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had denied the claimant's request to reopen two workers' compensation claims—one for a back injury from 1988 and a consequential death claim from 1990, and another from 1993 alleging death due to occupational stress. The Board found the requests untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 28 and 123, ruling that both claims were "truly closed" and beyond the seven-year reopening period. The claimant argued that a prescription drug benefit card sent by the State Insurance Fund constituted an advanced payment of compensation, thereby waiving the time constraints, and that her mother was not afforded an opportunity to be heard in prior proceedings. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the claims were properly closed, the prescription card was issued in error and did not revive the time-barred claim, and ample notice and opportunity to be heard had been provided.

Workers' CompensationClaim ReopeningAppealTimeliness BarStatute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation Law § 123Workers' Compensation Law § 28Advanced Payment of CompensationBoard JurisdictionEstate Claim
References
5
Case No. ADJ1761179 (LBO 0351115), ADJ3800791, ADJ2478410
Regular
Mar 21, 2013

MARIA MELENDEZ vs. KELERMEYER BUILDING SERVICES, INC.; REHAB SOLUTIONS aka NORTH AMERICAN DISTRIBUTORS

This case involves a lien claimant, Rehab Solutions, whose lien was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) due to non-appearance at a lien conference and failure to respond to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss. Rehab Solutions petitioned for reconsideration, arguing they received neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard. The WCJ's report, adopted by the WCAB, found that Rehab Solutions was properly noticed for the lien conference and later received a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, but failed to appear or respond for approximately 90 days. Consequently, the WCAB denied the Petition for Reconsideration, though they admonished the lien claimant that further frivolous filings would result in sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLien ClaimantOrder Dismissing LienDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLien ConferenceNotice of HearingNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienProof of Service
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,706 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