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. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685), ADJ3521523 (OAK 0322592), ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Jan 25, 2016

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by Pamela Zeilstra against Target Stores. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not a final order, as it only addressed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. Furthermore, the WCAB denied removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and noted the petition's unverified status as an additional ground for dismissal. The Board found the unverified petition for removal lacked a compelling excuse and had not been cured within a reasonable time, as required by WCAB rules.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
8
Case No. ADJ3545497 (VNO 0549348) ADJ2475197 (VNO 0402476) ADJ4294865 (VNO 0435139)
Regular
Jan 06, 2016

HUMBERTO ZUNIGA vs. BALFAB MANUFACTURING COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The petition was dismissed for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, but rather an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The petition was also denied for removal as it was unverified, and the petitioner failed to cure the defect or provide a valid explanation after notice. Therefore, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied the petition for removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory Procedural OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueVerified PetitionWCJ ReportDismissal
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. ADJ10559387 (VNO 0423516)
Regular
Apr 13, 2020

DAVE ZADA vs. ALPRO MILL WORKING, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition to be skeletal, lacking specific grounds, failure to cite the record, and crucially, it was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902. No timely cure or explanation was provided for the unverified petition. The WCAB also noted that it would have denied the petition on the merits based on the WCJ's report had procedural defects not led to dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionUnverified PetitionLabor Code § 5902Appeals Board RulesWCJ ReportVacating GrantDismissing PetitionVerification RequirementMaterial Evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ300431 (FRE 0203618) ADJ1896245 (FRE 0203619) ADJ3576423 (FRE 0203620)
Regular
Jan 14, 2014

Sherrill Perkins vs. Fresno Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal but granted her petition for reconsideration. Applicant's 40-page petition for reconsideration violated the 25-page limit and lacked good cause for exceeding it. Therefore, the Board will dismiss the petition unless a compliant one is refiled within ten days, while simultaneously addressing the attorney's separate fee reconsideration. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances to justify removal and will proceed with reconsideration after compliance with filing rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWCJcumulative traumatemporary disabilitypermanent disabilityapportionmentpenalties
References
2
Case No. ADJ10344600
Regular
Aug 02, 2018

LUCIA GRADINARIU vs. FUTUREWEI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., BERKLEY NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration and removal. The WCAB found that the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the December 28, 2016 Findings and Orders was procedurally defective as it was unverified and lacked proper proof of service. The Board also determined that the applicant's petition challenging the subsequent Order Taking Off Calendar was an attempt to seek reconsideration of an interlocutory order, which is improper. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from the interlocutory order.

AOE/COEPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Taking Off CalendarFindings and OrdersSubstantial Medical EvidenceUnverified PetitionProof of ServiceCumulative InjuryDate of Injury
References
0
Case No. LBO 0297361
Regular
Nov 28, 2007

ANTHONY TENNISON vs. NATIONAL PLANT SERVICES, CIGA by its servicing representative, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, for Reliance Insurance, in liquidation

The Appeals Board dismissed petitions for reconsideration and removal challenging an order compelling the applicant's wife to attend a continued deposition. The pro se petition was dismissed as untimely and unverified, while the attorney's petition was dismissed because discovery orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order, finding the wife waived her marital privilege by appearing and testifying, and cautioned parties about potential sanctions for their behavior.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaldepositionmarital privilegechild care reimbursementdiscovery orderinterlocutory orderfinal orderuntimely petition
References
12
Case No. ADJ4141364 (MON 0148578) ADJ1953565 (MON 0155282) ADJ773621 (MON 0199028)
Regular
Jun 01, 2009

Deborah Gross (Butler) vs. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS; CIGA through its servicing facility, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, for FREMONT for INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY, in liquidation, The Boeing Company c/o AIG Claims Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the judge's findings on three industrial injuries to her neck, shoulder, and back. The Board dismissed "The Boeing Company's" petition for reconsideration because it was unverified and because Boeing was not currently a party aggrieved by an award. The applicant's arguments regarding simultaneous permanency, disability reduction, and the application of medical opinions were rejected. The Board adopted the judge's report and reasoning in its decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMcDonnell DouglasCIGAFremont Industrial IndemnityDeborah GrossPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardsPermanent DisabilityCumulative TraumaBenson v. WCAB
References
2
Case No. ADJ6474791
Regular
May 04, 2012

BELEN MCELVANY vs. MICHAEL MCELVANY, dba MCELVANY INSURANCE AGENCY; FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Farmers Insurance Exchange's (FIE) Petition for Reconsideration and Petition for Removal. The dismissal was primarily based on the petition being unverified and not pertaining to a final order. Even if considered for removal, FIE failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, both procedural avenues were closed to FIE by the Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalUnverified PetitionFinal OrderAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationContinuous TraumaUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundLabor Code
References
2
Case No. ADJ1534095 (LAO 0820188)
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

PAMELA MCMILLIN vs. XEROX CORPORATION; ACE USA, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of an order dismissing its lien was untimely filed. Because the original petition was untimely, the administrative law judge lacked jurisdiction to rescind the dismissal order. Therefore, the Board rescinded the judge's order and dismissed the lien claimant's petition, leaving the original dismissal order in effect.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Rescinding DecisionLien ClaimLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06JurisdictionUntimely FilingCompromise and ReleaseWCJ
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 18,989 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