Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. SAC 0315585

Regular

Sep 18, 2007

Bradley Dorigo vs. State of California, Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

This case concerns the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund's (SIF) liability for an applicant's vocational rehabilitation counselor fees. The Appeals Board affirmed a prior award requiring SIF to reimburse a portion of the vocational expert's fees, despite SIF's arguments that it was not liable for such costs. The Board cited prior writ-denied cases and relevant statutes, including Code of Civil Procedure section 1028 and Labor Code section 5708, to support its decision.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundVocational rehabilitation expertLabor Code section 4751Compromise and releaseStipulated awardPermanent disabilityReimbursementWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeCode of Civil Procedure section 1028

References

Case No. ADJ6843759; ADJ6937004

Regular

Feb 04, 2013

CHARLES HOLZ vs. GOTTCHALKS; SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior order denying their motion. This decision allows the defendant to compel the applicant to attend an evaluation with their vocational expert, despite no explicit statutory authority for such an order. The Board found this was necessary under Labor Code section 5708 to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties, especially since the applicant had already utilized his own vocational expert. The Board distinguished this case from *Browne v. Superior Court*, noting the current case does not involve a physical examination.

Petition for RemovalVocational ExpertDiminished Future Earnings CapacityDFECAgreed Medical EvaluatorWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5708WCJInterlocutory OrdersRebuttal

References

Case No. ADJ18376723

Regular

Oct 09, 2025

Miguel Mejinez vs. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding an order that rescinded a prior directive for the applicant to disclose medical history under Labor Code section 4663(d). The defendant argued that section 4663(d) compels disclosure upon request and that they suffered prejudice from the applicant's refusal. However, the Board, concurring with the WCJ's recommendation, found that while section 4663 broadened the scope of discovery, it did not expand the methods of compelled discovery, which are limited to oral testimony and records under Labor Code section 5708. Consequently, the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal, concluding that written interrogatories are not an appropriate method for compelled discovery in workers' compensation cases.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rescinding OrderMedical History DisclosureLabor Code Section 4663(d)Previous Permanent DisabilitiesPhysical ImpairmentsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWritten Interrogatories

References

Showing 1-3 of 3 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

Bradley Dorigo vs. State of California, Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund

CHARLES HOLZ vs. GOTTCHALKS; SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

Petition for RemovalVocational ExpertDiminished Future Earnings CapacityDFECAgreed Medical EvaluatorWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5708WCJInterlocutory OrdersRebuttal

Miguel Mejinez vs. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, State Compensation Insurance Fund