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. 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. ADJ2948353 (SAL 0116403) ADJ803362 (SAL 0116404) ADJ2320380 (SAL 0116407)
Regular
May 04, 2009

BRIAN CARRASCO vs. CLARK PEST CONTROL, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The applicant filed a petition alleging bias by the WCJ based on 21 instances of alleged misconduct. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for removal, finding it untimely and unverified, as the applicant did not claim to be aggrieved by the last order and the petition was filed beyond the 20-day limit. Furthermore, the Board denied the disqualification petition because it was not supported by a verified affidavit and the judge in question was not currently assigned to the cases for trial. These procedural deficiencies led to the dismissal of the removal petition and denial of the disqualification petition.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ Steven D. TuanBias AllegationsUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionWCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10452Labor Code Section 5310
References
0
Case No. ADJ8316615
Regular
Aug 09, 2018

ROYZELL WHITE vs. CITY OF LONG BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified, and the defect was not cured despite notice. Furthermore, the WCAB would have dismissed the petition even if verified, as it sought reconsideration of a non-final procedural order. The lien claimant's Petition for Removal was also denied as it failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The original order denying the lien claimant's petition was issued without prejudice, allowing proper service and further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-IBR medical-legal disputeLien claimantVerificationFinal orderInterlocutory decisionWCJEAMS
References
9
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. 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. ADJ8437148, ADJ8437147
Regular
Jan 23, 2017

FARAHNAZ DAHI vs. WEI \u0026 JULIA, a California Corporation, WEI S. MEISNER, an individual and substantial Shareholder of WEI \u0026 JULIA, INC., UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration/removal primarily because the petition was unverified. The Board also found that removal was not appropriate as it did not meet the criteria for seeking immediate appellate intervention before a final order. Since the petitioner failed to cure the defect of the unverified petition after notice, the Board dismissed it. The Board noted that even on the merits, the petition would have been denied based on the WCJ's report.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ ReportAppeals Board Rule 10843Final OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueAOE/COELabor Code Section 5902
References
5
Case No. ADJ3755232
Regular
Jan 11, 2016

ABDUL AKHGAR aka AKHMADMIR ABDULMIR vs. MED-PHARMEX, INC., EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and Removal was dismissed for multiple procedural defects. Specifically, the petition failed to identify the order being challenged, lacked grounds, supporting evidence, and legal citations. Furthermore, the petition was unverified and did not demonstrate irreparable harm or prejudice, rendering it skeletal and insufficient for either reconsideration or removal. The Board also reminded parties of their service and property disclosure duties.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalskeletal petitionunverified petitionfinal ordersubstantive rightthreshold issueirreparable harmsubstantial prejudiceinterlocutory decision
References
18
Case No. ADJ218892 (OXN 0145664)
Regular
May 01, 2012

JACOBO GARCIA ALVARO vs. SAN MARINO PLASTERING, INC., LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE, Administered by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order compelling attendance at a medical examination was not a final order. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable injury to justify removal. Additionally, the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was unverified, and the defect was not cured despite notice, further supporting its dismissal. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the WCJ's order for the applicant to attend the examination.

Panel Qualified Medical ExaminationPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJfinal ordersubstantive rightsirreparable harmsubstantial prejudiceverificationLabor Code section 5902
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 14,079 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