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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ8905655
Regular
Nov 09, 2015

JAN MELLEMA vs. CHEVRON, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Zurich's Petition for Reconsideration and denied its Petition for Removal. Zurich sought reconsideration of an order joining it as a defendant, but the Board found that reconsideration is only available for final orders, not interlocutory ones like party joinder. While Zurich's petition was timely, the Board denied removal because Zurich failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the joinder. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the correct parties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoinder of Party DefendantInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmDefective ServiceTimeliness
References
Case No. LBO 0384614
Regular
Jan 23, 2008

CAROLINA SALES vs. ROSS STORES, INC. and XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE, MJO STAFFING and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order vacating a Compromise and Release (C&R). The Board then granted reconsideration on its own motion to rescind the original C&R approval. This action affirmed the WCJ's decision to vacate the C&R, effectively returning the parties to their pre-settlement status, due to the applicant's expressed confusion and potential lack of full understanding of the agreement's terms.

Compromise and ReleasePetition for ReconsiderationOrder VacatingFinal OrderLabor Code Section 5900Good CauseUnverified PetitionIndustrial InjuryApplicant's UnderstandingWCJ Discretion
References
Case No. ADJ8944782
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

MARLYN HERNANDEZ vs. PINK HOUSE IMPORTS, LLC, PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

Citywide Scanning Service, Inc. sought reconsideration of discovery orders denying its objections, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed its petition. The Board found that the orders were interlocutory and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, Citywide, not being a party to the underlying case and not demonstrating lien claimant status, lacked standing to object or file the petition. The Board clarified that the proper procedure for contesting interlocutory discovery orders is a petition for removal, but only parties aggrieved may file it.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumStandingFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery MattersLien ClaimantWCAB Rule 10843Petition for Removal
References
Case No. ADJ8050106 ADJ9468937 ADJ9154032
Regular
Nov 03, 2018

ANTONIO VAZQUEZ vs. CARSON TRAILERS, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was taken from an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final decision issues. The order pertains to multiple cases involving Antonio Vazquez and Carson Trailers. The WCJ's order directing the use of a specific bill reviewer was deemed an evidentiary/procedural matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderEvidentiary OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ7541189
Regular
Jul 22, 2013

MARIA DEL CARMEN POSADA vs. MICHAEL JOSEPH FURIE SALON, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing its lien. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because the claimant was not a party to the case in which the order was issued, therefore it was not aggrieved by the order. The Board noted procedural issues with the original order's service and the judge's subsequent attempt to vacate it. However, the dismissal of the petition for reconsideration stands, and the lien claimant may still pursue its claim in the proper case or file a new lien.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantWCJ OrderLabor Code Section 5900Aggrieved PartyCompromise and ReleaseLien ConferenceADJ NumbersWCABVacate Order
References
Case No. ADJ9496892
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

JUNE JONES vs. CALIFORNIA SPECIAL PATROL, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Applicant's attorney sought reconsideration of an Order Rescinding Submission, Order Vacating Finding and Order, and Order to Develop the Record dated June 27, 2025, arguing further record development was unnecessary. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition and denial if treated as a petition for removal. The Appeals Board timely acted on the petition but noted issues with notice of transmission to the parties. They dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the underlying order non-final, and denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Rescinding SubmissionFindings and OrderLabor Code section 5909Transmission of CaseElectronic Adjudication Management SystemNotice of TransmissionFinal Order
References
Case No. ADJ9671520
Regular
Oct 18, 2019

ALICIA DAVENPORT vs. NORDSTROM, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Nordstrom's Petition for Reconsideration, finding the WCJ's order to take the case off calendar was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted Nordstrom's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This action was taken because the WCJ failed to adequately address the parties' Compromise and Release agreement, specifically concerning defendant's credit for $3,500 in missed appointment fees. The WCAB indicated the parties could bifurcate the settlement or the issue of the fees would require a hearing.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardNordstromInc.Alicia DavenportPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompromise and Releasemissed appointment feesadministrative law judgeOrder Suspending Action
References
Case No. ADJ9274305
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

SALVADOR REYES vs. AVP&H A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Salvador Reyes's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot, as the underlying issue regarding a specific Qualified Medical Examiner appeared to be resolved. Both petitions were denied as they did not address substantive rights or liabilities. The order reflects standard practice for non-final and moot petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityMootnessQMEOrder to CompelMeet and Confer
References
Showing 1-10 of 9,260 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