Home/Case Law/DANIEL DUARTE vs. GENERAL VINEYARDS/MCFARLAND & SONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND
Regular DecisionReconsideration

DANIEL DUARTE vs. GENERAL VINEYARDS/MCFARLAND & SONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Filed: Mar 04, 2008
San Francisco
SAL 112739

CompFox AI Summary

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision, as required by Labor Code § 5900(a). The order in question allowed an applicant's QME report and reopened the record for a supplemental report, neither of which determined substantive liability. Even if treated as a petition for removal, it was denied on the merits for failing to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

Full Decision Text1 Pages

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision, as required by Labor Code § 5900(a). The order in question allowed an applicant's QME report and reopened the record for a supplemental report, neither of which determined substantive liability. Even if treated as a petition for removal, it was denied on the merits for failing to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

Read the full decision

Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.