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. ADJ10190746 ADJ10190618
Regular
Aug 24, 2018

JOSE CARDENAS vs. A&M PROPERTIES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST GROUP

In *Cardenas v. A&M Properties*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a defendant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB found the petition deficient because it was unsigned and unverified, violating WCAB rules. Furthermore, the accompanying proof of service was also unsigned, which is a valid ground for summary dismissal. Consequently, the WCAB ordered the Petition for Removal dismissed.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10843(b)WCAB Rule 10450(e)WCAB Rule 10450(f)WCAB Rule 10850unsigned petitionunverified petitionproof of servicesummarily dismissingoff calendar
References
0
Case No. ADJ4098273 (ANA 0399921)
Regular
Apr 08, 2011

SHARIF EL KATAN vs. BASSETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., CORVEL SACRAMENTO

This case involves an unrepresented applicant who sent an unsigned letter to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) alleging discrimination by the assigned judge due to "mean look and angry voice." The WCAB dismissed the letter, construed as a petition for removal, because the applicant failed to identify an aggrieved "order or decision, or . . . action in issue." Additionally, the WCAB denied the petition for disqualification, adopting the judge's reasoning for doing so. The case remains set for trial.

Petition for removalPetition for disqualificationWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJAdministrative Law JudgeGovernor Jerry BrownBassett Business ServicesInc.Corvel Sacramento
References
0
Case No. ADJ15495436
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

Calvin Grigsby vs. Grigsby and Associates, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered two petitions from the applicant, Calvin Grigsby: a December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal, and a December 24, 2024 Petition for Removal. The Board dismissed the reconsideration aspect of the December 9th petition as it pertained to non-final orders and denied removal, finding no demonstration of irreparable harm. The subsequent December 24th petition was also dismissed as it challenged the same December 4, 2024 orders. The Board also noted the applicant's failure to comply with page limits for the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNonfinal OrdersLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental Pleadings
References
15
Case No. ADJ344700
Regular
Jan 13, 2011

MARTHA GATLIN BANUELOS vs. LIVHOME, INC., as administered by CRUM FORSTER, CENTRAL ORTHOPEDIC MEDICAL GROUP, RONALD KVITNE, M.D. PHYSICIAN PARTNER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, finding they were not aggrieved by the decision awarding them full reimbursement for medical services. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was denied as the WCAB adopted the judge's reasoning for upholding the award. The WCAB affirmed the judge's finding that the lien claimant was entitled to $11,508.79 less any penalty or interest, despite an objection to an unsigned bill. This decision resolved disputes regarding the reasonableness of medical charges following an industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationDefendant's PetitionAmended Findings and AwardOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLabor Code section 5900Admissibility of EvidenceExhibit 1Itemized Bill
References
0
Case No. ADJ7768905
Regular
Sep 13, 2016

TRACEY LOMBARDI vs. SCRIPPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition, which sought disqualification of the administrative law judge, removal, and reconsideration. The disqualification petition was denied as untimely, filed after the swearing of the first witness. The removal petition failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Finally, the reconsideration petition was dismissed because it did not seek review of a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5311Appeals Board Rule 10452Untimely PetitionExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
6
Case No. ADJ3808038 (LAO 0819022)
Regular
Feb 11, 2010

NICOLAS F. BENINKOFF (Deceased), LORENA BENINKOFF (Widow) vs. DARCO METAL SURFACING, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied petitions for removal and reconsideration from lien claimants and the defendant, and denied the applicant's reconsideration petition. Lien claimants Kan and Ace's petition for removal was denied as they failed to show substantial prejudice, and their reconsideration petition was dismissed as the prior order was not final. The applicant's reconsideration petition was denied because her claim for home healthcare services was deemed an untimely lien claim under Labor Code section 4903.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationLien ClaimantsUntimely LienLabor Code section 4903.5Labor Code section 5405Home Healthcare ServicesMedical TreatmentTransportation Expenses
References
5
Case No. ADJ7157224
Regular
Sep 12, 2011

NORMA NERI vs. KRISPY KREME DOUGHNUTS, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE, SEDGWICK CMS/SRS

This case involves Norma Neri's pro per petition for reconsideration of an approved Compromise and Release agreement. Her petition was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board because it was unverified, unsigned, and failed to state the grounds for reconsideration. The Board noted that Labor Code section 5902 requires verification of such petitions and that applicant had not cured this defect despite notice. Therefore, the Board found good cause to dismiss the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and Releaseunverified petitionunsigned petitionLabor Code section 5902verification defectLucena v. Diablo Auto Bodygrounds for reconsiderationmaterial evidence
References
1
Case No. SBR 0271963; SBR 0247442; SBR 0247444; SBR 0247445; VNO 0299465; LAO 0761513; LAO 0761514; LAO 0761515; LAO 0761516; LAO 0761517; LAO 0761518; LAO 0761519; LAO 0761520; LAO 0761521; LAO 0761522; LAO 0761523; LAO 0761524; LAO 0761525; LAO 0761526; LAO 0761527; LAO 0761528; LAO 0761529; LAO 0761530
Regular
Dec 10, 2007

EDAR Y. ROGLER vs. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. JOHNSON; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed an attorney's petition seeking to remove or disqualify Judge Kacey Joseph Keating from presiding over her cases. The WCAB found the petition for removal procedurally improper and the petition for automatic reassignment untimely, as prior hearings involving the judge had occurred. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the disqualification petition because the applicant failed to provide legally sufficient grounds or a required affidavit.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for Automatic ReassignmentPetition for DisqualificationWCJLabor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452Code of Civil Procedure Section 641Attorney Applicant
References
0
Case No. ADJ6861886
Regular
Feb 01, 2012

Tracy Huiras vs. Nestle USA, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration, disqualification, and removal concerning a WCJ's order compelling a claims adjuster to testify at a lien trial. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the order was not final. While the petition for disqualification was denied due to insufficient evidence of bias, the petition for removal was granted. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order compelling witness testimony, as the lien claimant bears the burden of proof and must produce their own witnesses.

WCABRemovalDisqualificationMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJLien ClaimClaims AdjusterPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for DisqualificationPetition for Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ8381778
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

GERALD BROWN vs. GOLDEN GATE PETROLEUM, LIBERTY MUTUAL

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Gerald Brown, filed a Petition for Removal and a Petition for Disqualification against Golden Gate Petroleum and Liberty Mutual. The defendants subsequently withdrew both petitions after entering into a Compromise and Release agreement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both petitions as moot, as they were withdrawn and the settlement was approved by the WCJ. Therefore, no further action will be taken on the dismissed petitions.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationCompromise and ReleaseWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ8381778mootwithdrawn petitionsdismissaladministrative law judge
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 14,098 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