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. ADJ8620013, ADJ10761228
Regular
Jun 08, 2017

MARK EBERWEIN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order. The WCAB further denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial. The WCJ's decision addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not a substantive right or threshold issue. Therefore, neither reconsideration nor removal was deemed appropriate at this stage.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ7894038 (MF), ADJ9807148
Regular
May 08, 2018

PEDRO GOMEZ vs. RALPH'S GROCERIES; Permissibly Self-Insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was not timely filed from a final order, as the WCJ's decision addressed only an intermediate procedural issue. The Petition for Removal was also denied, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. This ruling reinforces that interlocutory decisions in workers' compensation cases are not subject to immediate appellate review. Therefore, the case proceeds on its procedural merits without early intervention.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ9076607
Regular
Nov 15, 2018

VALERIE COLES vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Valerie Coles, against the County of Alameda. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, ruling that the WCJ's decision was not a "final" order as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, not substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. Therefore, the applicant's attempts to challenge the interim decision through these procedural avenues were unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ12205724
Regular
Jul 03, 2019

DENISSE LOPEZ vs. CHINO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, HCMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Consequently, the case proceeds as if no reconsideration or removal was granted.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ10648626
Regular
Apr 27, 2018

LUBIA CASTANEDA vs. ELITE SUBLIMATION, INC., REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed Lubia Castaneda's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's decision on venue was an interlocutory procedural issue, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, it was not a proper subject for reconsideration. The petition for removal was also denied as Castaneda failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ3521523 (OAK0322592), ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685), ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Oct 25, 2016

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Pamela Zeilstra's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order. The WCAB determined that the workers' compensation judge's decision only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. Furthermore, the petition for removal was denied, as Zeilstra failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ9 131383
Regular
Jul 07, 2017

MARTIN HEREDIA vs. CERTIFIED AVIATION SERVICES, PRAETORIAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's decision addressed an intermediate procedural issue, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. The petition for removal was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning in both instances. This ruling clarifies that only final orders are subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural IssueEvidentiary Issue
References
Case No. ADJ10076795, ADJ10799417
Regular
Aug 28, 2017

ONICA COLE vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ACME ADMINISTRATORS TEMECULA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final order that addressed only intermediate procedural or evidentiary issues. The WCAB also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, both the reconsideration and removal petitions were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ10069954
Regular
Dec 21, 2015

MAURO PEREZ vs. FAMILY TREE SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was based on an interlocutory order that did not determine substantive rights or a threshold issue. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would likely be an adequate remedy later. The defendants' procedural objection regarding venue was resolved by their filing of a verified answer.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Showing 1-10 of 6,451 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