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. 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. 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. 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 However, the WCAB granted Nordstrom's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter for further proceedings.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. ADJ9120917, ADJ6899995
Regular
Sep 16, 2016

RICK STEIN vs. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH

The WCAB dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's order vacating a prior order approving a compromise and release was not a final order. The Board granted the defendant's petition for removal to amend the vacating order, specifying the matter should be set for a status conference. This action was taken under WCAB Rule 10859, allowing the WCJ to rescind an order and conduct further proceedings within 30 days. The case is returned to the WCJ to determine if good cause exists to set aside the compromise and release.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseOrder Vacating Order Approving Compromise and ReleaseWCJLabor Code Section 132(a)Cumulative Trauma InjuryLeft Knee Injury
References
Case No. ADJ9122601 ADJ9122724
Regular
Mar 08, 2017

WENDY SHALVOY vs. WARNER BROTHERS HOME ENTERTAINMNET, INC.

The applicant claimed her employer violated Labor Code section 132a by withholding temporary disability benefits, which she believed led to differential treatment in a layoff. The WCJ initially issued a "take nothing" order on her entire application. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error, finding the WCJ inadvertently applied the "take nothing" order to the wrong part of the applicant's claim. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant failed to prove a violation of section 132a, amending the order to specify she takes nothing regarding her petition for enhanced benefits under that section.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeTemporary Total DisabilitySeverance PackageDifferential TreatmentClerical ErrorPetition for Enhanced Benefits
References
Case No. ADJ4201900 (OAK 0256105) ADJ1515754 (OAK 0212526) ADJ868359 (OAK 0282983)
Regular
Feb 27, 2017

GRACE BEATTY vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration. The petitions sought to revisit a Minute Order that placed the case off calendar, which is not a final order. A petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a final order that determines substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the WCAB found the petitions procedurally improper and dismissed them.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOff Calendar OrderCompromise and ReleaseSubsequent Injury Benefits Trust FundNon-Final OrderLabor CodeFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiability
References
Case No. ADJ6800117
Regular
Oct 30, 2013

JUANITA LUCAS vs. WALGREENS DISTRIBUTION CENTER, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of an order vacating a Compromise and Release. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was not taken from a "final" order that determined substantive rights. The WCAB also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. However, the WCAB noted that the administrative law judge should have set the matter for a conference to determine good cause to set aside the order rather than vacating it directly.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityOrder Approving Compromise and ReleasePetition to Set Aside Compromise and ReleaseVacating OrderLabor Code §5900
References
Case No. ADJ9056788; ADJ7888781
Regular
Dec 09, 2013

Cesar Lopez vs. Good Earth Natural Foods, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Cesar Lopez's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The underlying issue involved the rescission of an order approving a compromise and release to address a dispute over an attorney's fee lien. The WCAB affirmed its jurisdiction to resolve such attorney fee liens.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityCompromise and ReleaseAttorney's Fee LienWithhold Attorney's FeeReturn Attorney's Fee
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
Case No. ADJ8218969
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

JOSE CARRILLO (Deceased) ELVIRA CARRILLO (Widow) vs. ESTERLINE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ARCH INSURANCE, Administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a taken nothing order concerning the death claim of Jose Carrillo, who died of renal cell carcinoma. The initial decision found the widow failed to prove her husband's cancer was industrially caused by toxic exposure during his employment. The Board found the Qualified Medical Evaluator's opinion equivocal and the record insufficient to determine the extent of the decedent's exposure to carcinogens. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial judge for further development of the record regarding chemical exposure and a new determination of industrial causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElvira CarrilloJose CarrilloEsterline Technologies CorporationArch InsuranceESISADJ8218969Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ordertaken nothing order
References
Showing 1-10 of 8,817 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