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. ADJ6713503
Regular
May 16, 2014

MATTHEW JENSON vs. PEPSI BOTTLING GROUP, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by South Lake Medical Center and its associated entities. The Board also dismissed the successive Petition for Reconsideration filed by Accurate Medical Assessment Rating Center (AMARC). AMARC's prior petition was already denied, and successive petitions are not permitted, requiring review by the Court of Appeals instead. The Board adopted the WCJ's Report and Recommendation in support of these decisions.

WCABLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5813California Code of Regulations title 8 section 10561WCJSanctionsSuccessive PetitionOrder Denying Petitions for ReconsiderationWrit of Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ6633632
Regular
Aug 01, 2011

DESHAY FORD vs. TRI-COUNTIES REGIONAL CENTERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Deshay Ford's successive petition for reconsideration of a prior Appeals Board order denying his petition for removal. The Board dismissed Ford's petition because successive petitions challenging a prior order are impermissible under established precedent. The applicant's sole recourse for reviewing an Appeals Board decision is to petition for a writ of review to the Court of Appeals.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDismissedSuccessive petitionsWrit of reviewAppeals BoardCrowe Glass CompanyNavarro v. A&A FarmingIn pro perTri-Counties Regional Centers
References
2
Case No. ADJ9382780
Regular
Feb 10, 2016

SANG BO LEE vs. M&J MANAGEMENT GROUPL, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a successive petition for reconsideration filed by the applicant, Sang Bo Lee, after a prior petition on the same issues was denied. The Appeals Board dismissed the current petition because it did not present new evidence and addressed the same arguments as the initial filing. California law generally prohibits successive petitions unless a party is newly aggrieved or the Board's decision was based on new evidence. Because neither condition was met, the applicant's petition was dismissed.

Successive petitionPetition for reconsiderationAppeals BoardDismissalNewly aggrievedNew evidenceWrit of reviewWCJ reportNavarro v. A & A FramingGoodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com.
References
5
Case No. ADJ3964372 (MON 0247784) ADJ4081926 (MON 0247785)
Regular
Sep 19, 2019

ROBERT BAKER vs. CITY OF COMPTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Robert Baker's petition for reconsideration because it was untimely filed. The petition was filed on March 27, 2019, well past the January 2, 2019 deadline after a prior order on December 7, 2018. Additionally, the petition was deemed successive as it was filed after a previous petition was denied and the applicant had not become newly aggrieved. Therefore, the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely and successive petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelySuccessiveLabor Code § 5909Due ProcessTolledJurisdictionalWCABWrit of ReviewShipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
9
Case No. ADJ13831424
Regular
Feb 27, 2023

FELIPE MARTINEZ, Deceased vs. ONE WORLD VENTURES, LLC, ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a successive petition for reconsideration filed by the applicant after an initial petition was denied. The Appeals Board dismissed the current petition as successive, citing established precedent that a second petition is not allowed unless the petitioner is newly aggrieved or new evidence is presented. Because no new evidence was introduced and the petition raised the same issues as the prior one, it was deemed waived and dismissed. The Board also noted that the September 16, 2022 order being challenged was not a final order.

Successive PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdjudication NumberDismissalEn Banc DecisionWrit of ReviewNew EvidenceLabor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 5904
References
11
Case No. ADJ4237598 (LAO 0866879), ADJ2618117 (VNO 0540849)
Regular
Jul 19, 2012

CHRIS JOHN MUNOZ vs. INFINITY METALS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board dismissed Perona Langer's petition for reconsideration because it was a successive petition following a prior dismissal, and it was also untimely filed. The Board noted that Perona Langer failed to serve its initial petition on all adverse parties, leading to the first dismissal. Furthermore, even if the petition were timely and not successive, the Board found Perona Langer's argument for a larger fee share unpersuasive, as the WCJ had reasonably allocated fees based on the results and effort of each prior counsel. The Board affirmed that a party cannot file a second petition for reconsideration after an adverse ruling; they must seek a writ of review in the Court of Appeal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalAttorneys' FeesLabor Code Section 4906(d)Proof of ServiceAdverse PartiesTimelinessWrit of ReviewSuccessive Petition
References
5
Case No. ADJ9177100, ADJ9483143
Regular
Jan 20, 2015

Gregory Enlow vs. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves applicant Gregory Enlow's petition for reconsideration of a prior dismissal order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely filed, exceeding the 20-day deadline plus mailing extension. Furthermore, the Board found the petition to be successive, as a prior reconsideration had already been denied. As a result, the Board lacks jurisdiction to grant this untimely and successive petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional LimitLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013WCAB Rule 10507Consecutive PetitionWrit of ReviewEn Banc Decision
References
7
Case No. ADJ11997989, ADJ2534190, ADJ3372314, ADJ470082, ADJ6672465
Regular
Mar 13, 2023

JAMES VESSELS vs. CRUZ MODULAR, INC., LABOR READY, ENSTAR US, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was untimely, having been filed significantly past the jurisdictional deadline. The Board also noted this was a successive petition, which is impermissible when the prior petition was not successful and no new grievances have arisen. The Applicant's repeated, untimely filings have led the Board to consider declaring him a vexatious litigant under Rule 10430. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed in its entirety.

Petition for Reconsiderationuntimelysuccessive petitionjurisdictionalMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. HaglerScott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.Goodrich v. Industrial Acc. Com.Ramsey v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
14
Case No. LAO 0798702
Regular
Jun 19, 2008

ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ vs. EL TORITO RESTAURANT, KEMPER PRIMARY WORK COMP PRG, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves applicant Enrique Hernandez's second petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board dismissed the petition because it was a successive filing, as the initial petition had already been denied on the merits without new evidence. Applicant's arguments regarding a repetitive stress disorder (RSD) diagnosis were not considered due to the successive nature of the petition and his failure to properly present new evidence.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJIndustrial InjuryNeckLeft ShoulderLeft Upper ExtremityRepetitive Stress Disorder (RSD)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Successive PetitionWrit of Review
References
4
Case No. ADJ4139018 (SJO 0238189)
Regular
Jan 25, 2016

Yun-Wen (Debbie) Lu vs. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., ZURICH INSURANCE, CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed late, exceeding the jurisdictional 20-day limit plus mailing extension. Furthermore, the petition was deemed successive, as it challenged a prior denial of reconsideration, for which the proper remedy would have been a writ of review. The Board stated that even if the petition were timely and not successive, it would have affirmed its previous decision. Ultimately, the Board dismissed the petition for these procedural defects.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalLabor Code section 5903JurisdictionalConsecutive PetitionWrit of ReviewOrder Denying PetitionConstitution State Services
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 14,561 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