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. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ 1153404
Regular
Sep 04, 2008

Barbara Clark vs. SAN JOAQUIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM

Applicant's petition for reconsideration is dismissed as untimely. Reconsideration is granted for Dr. Tepper's petition, with his deposition fee set at $250/hour, allowing him to contest the fee afterward under Labor Code section 5307.6(c).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationDismissing ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code section 5903(b)FraudDiscovery Orders
References
Case No. ADJ559742 (LAO 0886579) ADJ2524675 (LAO 0886580)
Regular
Oct 18, 2010

Maureen Simmons vs. TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS, HARTFORD WORK COMP PROGRAM, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's untimely petition for reconsideration of the WCJ's August 19, 2010 Findings and Orders denying benefits. However, the Board granted reconsideration on its own motion due to the applicant's inability to attend trial approximately 400 miles from her home and her claim that her attorney failed to inform the court. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the matter for further proceedings, also noting the applicant's request for a change of venue due to hardship.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTelepacific CommunicationsHartford Work Comp ProgramGallagher Bassett ServicesPetition for ReconsiderationDismissing PetitionGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034)
Regular
Mar 25, 2014

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT FOOD SERVICES, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., BROADSPIRE

This case involves applicant Kristian Von Ritzhoff's petition for reconsideration of a prior Board decision. The Board had previously modified an administrative law judge's order, shifting the responsibility for paying a sanction and costs from the defendant to the applicant. The applicant's current petition sought reconsideration of this modified order, but the Board found it was a successive petition without a new grievance. Because the applicant was not "aggrieved" by the modification to the payment method and had not been granted relief previously sought, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissing PetitionOpinion and OrderGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderWorkers' compensation administrative law judgeSanction and costsLabor Code section 5900
References
Case No. ADJ3399937 (VNO 0423516 ADJ8997142 ADJ10559387 ADJ7656828
Regular
Feb 27, 2019

DAVE ZADA vs. ALPRO MILLWORKING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Dave Zada's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition untimely, successive, and skeletal, failing to meet procedural requirements for reconsideration. Zada also did not demonstrate how he was aggrieved by the prior WCAB decision. Therefore, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPro PerSuccessive PetitionUntimely PetitionSkeletal PetitionAggrieved PartyJurisdictional Time LimitVerified PleadingsMaterial EvidenceProof of Service
References
Case No. ADJ8183477
Regular
Jan 14, 2016

DOLORES MOSELEY vs. NOIA RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., ICW GROUP/INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Dolores Moseley's petition for reconsideration. The petition was untimely as it sought reconsideration of an award made over a year prior to filing. Furthermore, the petition was unverified and lacked specificity regarding the issues and legal arguments. Finally, the orders Moseley sought to reconsider were either vacated or deemed non-final procedural decisions, rendering the petition moot.

Labor Code Section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Dismissing PetitionOrder Vacating Trial DateStipulations with Request for AwardTimelinessJurisdictionalVerification
References
Case No. ADJ3882107
Regular
Oct 04, 2012

PETER ARCARESE vs. LAW OFFICES OF MANUEL H. MILLER, STATE FARM CALIFORNIA, WC CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Peter Arcarese's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The petition was also dismissed as consecutive, attempting to relitigate issues previously addressed after a prior dismissal. Furthermore, the request for removal was denied as Arcarese failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Consequently, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration and denied removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderDismissed PetitionPetition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedyWrit of Review
References
Case No. ADJ3393289 (LAO0594595)
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

BERNARD WILLIAM PONZI vs. LOS ANGELES MISSIONARY SOCIETY, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's request to file a supplemental petition for reconsideration but dismissed the original petition. The original petition was untimely, unverified, and skeletal, failing to meet procedural requirements for seeking reconsideration of prior orders. As no final order has issued since September 8, 1997, the applicant was not deemed aggrieved by a final decision. The WCAB recommended the applicant contact the Information and Assistance Officer for case status inquiries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardLien OrderPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionSkeletal PetitionAggrieved PartyLabor Code Section 5900
References
Case No. ADJ6705977 ADJ6880053
Regular
Jun 13, 2014

TERRI SIEGEL vs. WALGREENS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's untimely petition for removal, finding it lacked merit and was frivolous. The Board noted the petition was filed months after the subject orders, violating the 20-day filing deadline. Additionally, the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be inadequate. Consequently, the Board intends to impose sanctions of up to $1,000 on the defendant for filing a baseless petition.

Petition for RemovalUntimely PetitionOrder Vacating SubmissionOrder Taking Off CalendarReport and RecommendationSanctionsFrivolous PetitionLabor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Significant Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ7176475
Regular
Nov 04, 2012

OSCAR ALVARADO vs. BROTHERS TOWING OF NORCO/ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration and granted the defendant's petition. The Board affirmed the original decision but amended Finding of Fact No. 4 to remove the determination that home health care on a trial basis was necessary. This means the applicant's claim for trial home health care was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportAdministrative Law JudgePetition to amend decisionFinding of Facthome health caretrial basisrescinding determinationDefendant's Petition for Reconsideration
References
Showing 1-10 of 16,611 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