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. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board initially proposed sanctions against attorney Michael Linn, Esq., mistakenly listing the service date for his objection period. Despite Mr. Linn filing objections on March 4th and April 6th/9th, which were not technically untimely based on the actual service dates, the Board granted him further opportunities to respond. Ultimately, the Board extended the deadline to May 20, 2009, for Mr. Linn to file any additional objections to the proposed $\$ 500.00$ monetary sanction, citing potential service discrepancies and aiming to avoid any appearance of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardmonetary sanctionsnotice of intentiondue processservice date discrepancyobjection to sanctionsadditional timeCalifornia Code of Regulationsfurlough directivesstate holidays
References
2
Case No. ADJ8162481
Regular
Aug 29, 2014

JERRY CRADDUCK vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

This case involves the denial of a defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a workers' compensation matter. The defendant sought to have a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) report admitted, arguing the applicant's objection was untimely. However, the Board found the QME's report was indeed untimely and the applicant's objection was valid. Removal was denied because the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice and the WCAB Rules were also violated by the defendant.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Untimely ReportOff CalendarStatus ConferenceMedical UnitReplacement PanelTimeliness ObjectionComprehensive Medical-Legal EvaluationMedical Director
References
2
Case No. ADJ2716798 (WCK 0029007), ADJ2430808 (OAK 0281982), ADJ229203 (OAK 0333135), ADJ1351068 (WCK 0030503)
Regular
Dec 01, 2013

KAMLESH BANGA vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant, State Compensation Insurance Fund, petitioned for removal, arguing the applicant's objection to the judge was untimely. The applicant alleged the judge previously represented her, necessitating disqualification, but this objection was raised only after trial and an unfavorable award. The Appeals Board found the disqualification request untimely as it was not made before the first witness was sworn. Consequently, the Board granted removal, rescinded the order of rescission, and returned the cases to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rescinding FindingsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ DisqualificationTimeliness of ObjectionLabor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10452Petition for ReconsiderationMandatory Settlement ConferenceIndustrial Injuries
References
0
Case No. ADJ9163491; ADJ9163494
Regular
Jan 09, 2015

RIGOBERTO NORIEGA vs. BEST WESTERN TOWN & COUNTRY

This case concerns an applicant's petition for removal after the WCJ denied his objection to a QME's report. The applicant argued the QME report was untimely and prejudicial because it issued a zero impairment rating. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding the applicant waived his objection by not requesting a replacement QME panel until after receiving the unfavorable report. The Board cited precedent preventing parties from waiting to see if a report is favorable before objecting to its timeliness. Commissioner Zalewski dissented, believing the applicant could object after receipt as long as the objection preceded the replacement panel request.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME reportuntimely filingservice of reportreplacement panelobjectionstatutory timeframesLabor CodeAdministrative Director Rule
References
3
Case No. ADJ1952983
Regular
Mar 15, 2018

JUAN RIVERA vs. IMPORT EXPORT CACTUS, STATE COMPENSAITON INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought reconsideration of a prior ruling that deemed them to have waived objections to a specific invoice from lien claimant Scandoc Imaging. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding that the defendant's objection, if any, was untimely, having been filed approximately four years after the invoice was submitted. California regulations require objections to medical-legal billings within 60 days to avoid waiver. Therefore, the defendant waived their objections to the reasonableness of the services and charges for invoice #234447-3.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderslien claimantinvoice objectionwaiver of objectionreasonableness of servicesLabor Code section 4622Scandoc ImagingImport Export Cactus
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wilkinson v. Bendix Friction Corp.

Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim after being diagnosed with a lung condition, which a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined in August 2003 was an occupational disease causally related to 1969 asbestos exposure while working for the employer, though not currently disabling. The claimant sought review. The Workers' Compensation Board, in January 2004, found the employer's rebuttals to be untimely. Subsequently, the employer and its third-party administrator filed an application for Board review in February 2004, which the Board denied as untimely in October 2004. The employer appealed this denial. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the application as untimely, given that the employer had received proper notice of the WCLJ decision.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ApplicationBoard ReviewOccupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposureCausal RelationDisability ClaimAppellate Decision
References
4
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. ADJ8931511
Regular
Sep 04, 2014

DOUGLAS FEUTZ vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, affirming the WCJ's decision. The applicant's attorney objected to a supplemental QME report being untimely, but did not request a new QME panel until after reviewing the report. The Board found this action constituted a waiver of the objection because the request was not made contemporaneously with the objection to the violation. Allowing such a delay would undermine efficient dispute resolution and permit doctor shopping.

Petition for RemovalSupplemental ReportPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEMedical UnitReplacement QME PanelTimely Supplemental ReportProcedural ViolationWaiverDoctor-Shopping
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. ADJ9505188
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

BENITA MOFFETT vs. COLTON JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a defendant's petition for removal regarding a venue objection. The defendant's objection to the Anaheim venue, based on the applicant's attorney's principal place of business, was untimely as it was filed with the WCAB one day after the 30-day deadline. Although the objection was not timely filed under the initial rule, the defendant retains the right to petition for a change of venue for good cause, such as witness convenience, at a later stage.

WCABPetition for RemovalVenuePWCJ ReportTimelinessFilingServiceWCAB Rule 10410WCAB Rule 10301(t)Labor Code Section 5501.6
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,389 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