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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ2558516 (VNO 0339174) ADJ4123268 (VNO 0339173)
Regular
May 20, 2015

PAULA RANGEL vs. PALOS VERDES DEVELOPERS, CIGA by its servicing facility, SEDGWICK CMS for FREMONT INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order compelling the service of medical-legal reports, not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB noted that the defendant's arguments regarding procedural due process were unfounded as they had a hearing and opportunity to be heard. Finally, the Board admonished the defendant's representative for misstating facts, citing outdated authority, and filing improper petitions, warning of future sanctions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling ServiceMedical/Legal ReportingLien ClaimantProcedural Due ProcessInterlocutory OrderExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ455873 (LAO 0886539)
Regular
Sep 26, 2016

JAMES TOWNSEND vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, HARBOR DIVISION

This case concerns a lien claimant, BCP Collections, Inc., seeking reconsideration of an order denying its lien for $\$8,661.87$. The initial denial was based on BCP's alleged failure to provide proof of service for its Notice of Intention to allow the lien. However, the administrative law judge later vacated this order, recognizing proof of service had been timely filed. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed BCP's petition for reconsideration because the rescinded order was not a final decision. As no final determination of the lien currently exists, reconsideration is procedurally improper.

BCP CollectionsNotice of IntentionProof of ServiceEAMSLien ClaimPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing LienLien ConferenceRescinded OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ11191735, ADJ10457151
Regular
Apr 30, 2019

ANGEL DURAZO vs. THE NUNES COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC, CANON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a defendant's petition regarding a Utilization Review (UR) denial for applicant's neck surgery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the WCJ's order was not a final decision. However, the WCAB granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order, returning the matter for further proceedings. This action was taken because the WCJ's decision regarding the defective service of the UR report lacked sufficient evidentiary support.

Utilization ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionWCAB JurisdictionTimeliness of ServiceExpedited HearingQualified Medical EvaluatorRequest for AuthorizationNon Certification Utilization Review
References
Case No. ADJ9876334
Regular
Dec 12, 2017

ERIC DOZIER vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Kaiser Permanente's petition for reconsideration because the order they sought to appeal was not a final order. They also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board further clarified that the applicant's petition for reconsideration was timely due to a defective service designation on the original Order Approving Compromise and Release. Finally, the WCJ acted within their authority to rescind the Order Approving Compromise and Release after a timely reconsideration petition was filed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOACRDefective Service
References
Case No. ADJ8486079
Regular
Oct 27, 2017

JUAN GUZMAN vs. G&G EXPRESS, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, MARKEL INSURANCE COMPANY, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision rescinded orders dismissing three lien claimants due to improper service and late payment of lien activation fees. The WCAB found the dismissal orders were improperly delegated to defendant for service and that the petition for reconsideration was timely filed. Furthermore, evidence showed the three lien claimants paid their activation fees by the extended deadline of December 31, 2015. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsPetition for ReconsiderationOrders of DismissalNotices of Intention to DismissLien Activation FeeDeclaration of ReadinessElectronic Adjudication Management SystemFinal OrderInterlocutory Order
References
Case No. ADJ833288 (LBO 0385383)
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

MARTIN VALDEZ vs. NATURE'S TREE SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order taking the case off calendar, arguing their attorney was not properly served with prior dismissal notices. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because an order taking a case off calendar is interlocutory and not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board denied the request for removal, stating the applicant had not shown substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant must address the prior dismissal order at the trial level before seeking appellate review.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderDismissal OrderSubstitution of AttorneysLack of ProsecutionService of ProcessInterlocutory OrderFinal Order
References
Case No. ADJ3220762 (ANA 0379828)
Regular
Dec 22, 2008

MARIA REYES vs. WESTERN MEMORIAL SERVICE CORP., ZENITH WOODLAND HILLS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed from an interim discovery order, not a final decision, which is not subject to reconsideration under Labor Code § 5900. Even if considered a petition for removal or disqualification, the Board would deny it on the merits. Furthermore, the petition was dismissed for failure to include a required proof of service.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumPrimary Treating PhysicianIndustrial InjuryFinal OrderInterim OrdersDiscovery OrdersPetition for Removal
References
Case No. ADJ8091143
Regular
Jul 24, 2013

ELISE AINSLEY vs. RESCARE INC.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final, interlocutory discovery order, which is not subject to reconsideration. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, adopting the judge's reasoning and finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant was admonished for improperly seeking reconsideration of an interim order. Ultimately, both the petition for reconsideration and removal were dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory DecisionNon-Final OrderProcedural OrderEvidentiary DecisionDiscovery OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
Showing 1-10 of 11,332 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