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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1993

Claim of Garrison v. Craftech Industries, Inc.

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, as amended, which found his application for review untimely. The claimant argued that the Board abused its discretion by not exercising its continuing jurisdiction to consider the late application, despite not disputing the untimeliness. The court disagreed, citing a delay of over three months and the lack of an adequate explanation for the untimeliness. Given the Board’s broad discretion, the court affirmed its decision.

Workers' CompensationAppealUntimely ApplicationBoard DiscretionContinuing JurisdictionAffirmed DecisionProcedural IssueAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewWorkers’ Compensation Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ1 798995 (SAC 0324817)
Regular
Mar 08, 2016

Richard Hill vs. Tuttle Interior Systems, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a finding that an Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination was moot due to untimeliness. The Board held that while the Utilization Review (UR) decision expired, the subsequent IMR determination, even if issued outside statutory timeframes, remained valid. The WCAB emphasized that untimeliness is not a statutory ground to appeal an IMR decision and that IMR timeframes are directory, not mandatory. Consequently, the case was returned to the trial level, with the existing IMR decision binding unless grounds for appeal under Labor Code section 4610.6(h) are established.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code § 4610.6SB 863Medical NecessityDirectory vs. Mandatory TimeframesAdministrative DirectorMaximus Federal Services
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2008

Claim of Neville v. Magazine Distributors, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for membranous nephropathy, arguing it was an occupational disease from workplace chemical exposure. His counsel later conceded it was an accidental injury, and the claim was filed over two years after the accident. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the claim untimely under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. On appeal, the claimant contended the employer waived the untimeliness defense by not explicitly raising it at the first hearing and that the occupational disease tolling provision in Workers’ Compensation Law § 28 should apply. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no waiver of the untimeliness objection and that the tolling argument was unpreserved for review.

UntimelinessOccupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryWorkers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsWaiver DefenseTolling ProvisionChemical ExposureMembranous NephropathyBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Layton v. General Electric Co.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that disallowed her application for benefits due to untimeliness. The injury to her right elbow occurred on March 18, 1982, but a new claim was filed on March 3, 1985, after an initial report was allegedly lost. The employer raised the defense of untimeliness under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, which the Board sustained. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding no evidence of a timely claim filing within the two-year statutory period. The claimant's failure to file a C-3 form as required precluded her claim, and equitable estoppel was deemed inapplicable.

Untimely ClaimWorkers' CompensationStatutory BarClaim DisallowanceAppeal DecisionEmployer DefenseEquitable EstoppelInjury Claim
References
0
Case No. ADJ2037860
Regular
Sep 12, 2008

HECTOR RODAS vs. M.E.S. TRUCKING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB dismissed the applicant’s petition for reconsideration due to untimeliness and lack of verification.

ReconsiderationRehabilitation UnitDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedJurisdictionTimelinessPetition for ReconsiderationVerification DefectLabor Code § 5902Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge
References
7
Case No. ADJ455814 (AHM 0118435)
Regular
Dec 23, 2009

DALLIS INSCO vs. TRANSPORTATION CHARACTER SERVICE, ICW GROUP/EXPLORER

The WCAB dismissed the applicant’s petition for reconsideration due to untimeliness, lack of verification, and failure to provide proof of service upon the defendant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessVerificationProof of ServiceLabor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 5903California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10850In Pro PerStipulated Award
References
6
Case No. ADJ2475098
Regular
Oct 19, 2011

YOLANDA SPANDRI vs. LAUSD, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Yolanda Spandri. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed her petition. The dismissal is based on both untimeliness and, alternatively, would have been denied on the merits according to the WCJ's report. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration is formally dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and Recommendationuntimely petitiondismissal ordermerits denialadministrative law judgeLAUSDSedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ2475098
References
0
Case No. ADJ3204491 (SAC 0348071) ADJ1881599 (SAC 0348072) ADJ1315585 (SAC 0348073) ADJ1203378 (SAC 0348074)
Regular
Jan 12, 2009

DANIEL UNGUREANU vs. A. TEICHERT & SON, Permissibly SelfInsured, Adjusted By BRAGG & ASSOCIATES

The WCAB dismissed defendant’s petition for reconsideration but granted their petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ’s order for a new QME panel due to the applicant's delay in objecting to the untimeliness of the initial report. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelLabor Code § 4062.5untimelinesswaiversignificant prejudiceexpeditious litigation
References
3
Case No. VNO 0462079
Regular
Jul 11, 2007

JONAS MORENO vs. FILTERCOR, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's untimely petition for reconsideration of an approved compromise and release settlement. Despite the untimeliness, the WCAB remanded the matter to the administrative law judge to treat the petition as a request to reopen the case. This allows for further proceedings on the merits of the lien claimant's claim.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenUntimely FilingService by MailDefective ServiceLabor Code Sections 5803Labor Code Sections 5804Compromise and ReleaseLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
1
Case No. ADJ8175406
Regular
May 23, 2014

MAURICIO GONZALEZ vs. GORDON GIBSON CONSTRUCTION, INC., BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Mauricio Gonzalez's Petition for Reconsideration in Case No. ADJ8175406. The primary reason for dismissal was the petition's untimeliness, as it was filed more than 25 days after the decision. Additionally, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits had it been timely. The petition also suffered from procedural defects, including being unverified and skeletal, further warranting dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalWCAB Rules 10842WCAB Rules 10846Labor Code Section 5903Labor Code Section 5902Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Administrative Law JudgeReport and Recommendation
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 176 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