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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schenectady County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. v. Mills

The case concerns a dissenting opinion regarding a request by petitioners to the Department of Education for the business addresses of licensed veterinarians and veterinary technicians in Schenectady County. The Department maintains a database of nearly 800,000 licensed professionals but does not differentiate between residential and business addresses. While the majority concluded that disclosing business addresses would not violate personal privacy, the dissenting judge, Malone Jr., argues that disclosing residential addresses would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, emphasizing a heightened privacy concern for home addresses. The dissent criticizes the majority's reliance on an advisory opinion and proposes that affected licensees should be given notice and an opportunity to intervene to protect their privacy rights. The final order reversed the prior judgment and granted the petition, allowing the disclosure of addresses.

Licensing InformationProfessional ConductPrivacy RightsPublic RecordsFreedom of Information LawResidential AddressesBusiness AddressesVeterinariansVeterinary TechniciansSchenectady County
References
10
Case No. ADJ17626681
Regular
Sep 25, 2025

ANGELINA WILLIAMS vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, SEDGWICK CMS

Defendant filed a petition for removal from an order setting the matter for trial, arguing that discovery was incomplete. The Appeals Board denied the petition, stating that removal is an extraordinary remedy and the petitioner must demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not shown here. The Board noted that parties will have opportunities to create a record, raise all relevant issues, and address further discovery with the trial WCJ, preserving their right to challenge the order on reconsideration.

Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationDiscoveryWCJAppeals BoardAdjudication NumberTrialFinal Order
References
8
Case No. ADJ7247160
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

ARTURO VERA vs. DIRKSEN TRANSPORTATION, NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding a prior order that took the case off calendar. The Board found that the applicant had not shown due diligence in obtaining a psychiatric QME before the mandatory settlement conference and subsequent trial dates. The case was returned to the trial level for a status conference to address the applicant's condition and the defendant's contentions. This action was taken despite the applicant's change in legal representation.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorPsychiatric InjuryCompetency to TestifyDue DiligenceMandatory Settlement ConferenceTrial ContinuanceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRescinded Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ3995122 (OAK 0343980)
Regular
Aug 13, 2013

ROSA GOMEZ vs. NOB HILL FOODS, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal to address the exclusion of sub rosa films and investigator testimony. The trial judge had excluded this evidence because it was disclosed late and not shown to treating doctors. However, the Board found that the defendant properly disclosed the evidence and investigators at the mandatory settlement conference per Labor Code § 5502(d)(3). The admissibility of the sub rosa films and investigator testimony is now deferred to the trial judge.

Sub rosa filmsremovalmandatory settlement conferencedisclosureevidence exclusioninvestigative reportsLabor Code section 5502petition for removalpetition for reconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ7104576
Regular
Mar 09, 2012

DEVEL MOORE vs. GAMEWORKS/SEGA AMERICA, INC., MITSUI SUMIMOTO INSURANCE GROUP, MITSUI SUMIMOTO MARINE MANAGEMENT

Lien claimants improperly petitioned for reconsideration of an interlocutory order denying discovery, which is not a final order subject to reconsideration. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition and granted removal on its own motion to address the discovery dispute. The Board also issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions against the lien claimants and their counsel for bad-faith, frivolous actions and unprofessional conduct. Sanctions may be imposed up to $2,500 unless good cause is shown otherwise.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsDiscovery RequestsFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderRemovalSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Bad Faith
References
7
Case No. ADJ7067658
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

CLINTON FROST vs. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final interlocutory order regarding discovery, not a substantive determination. The WCAB also denied removal, adopting the judge's reasoning that no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown. While the WCAB disagreed with the judge's view on applicant's wife's party status, it found no violation warranting a replacement panel. The defendant can depose the PQME to address concerns about the wife's communication.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderRemovalSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmWCJ ReportPQMELabor Code Section 4062.3(f)Applicant's Wife
References
11
Case No. ADJ833288 (LBO 0385383)
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

MARTIN VALDEZ vs. NATURE'S TREE SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order taking the case off calendar, arguing their attorney was not properly served with prior dismissal notices. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because an order taking a case off calendar is interlocutory and not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board denied the request for removal, stating the applicant had not shown substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant must address the prior dismissal order at the trial level before seeking appellate review.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderDismissal OrderSubstitution of AttorneysLack of ProsecutionService of ProcessInterlocutory OrderFinal Order
References
9
Case No. ADJ8796312
Regular
Aug 09, 2013

GEORGE WALKER vs. CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTER SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, as it concerned an interlocutory decision denying a change of venue. The Board also denied the defendant's request for removal, adopting the judge's reasoning that no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown. The defendant's initial petition for change of venue was denied for failing to meet statutory requirements by not disclosing witness names, addresses, and testimony substance. Consequently, the Board upheld the prior order denying the venue change.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityVenueChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.6Prejudice
References
6
Case No. ADJ11219652, ADJ10999793, ADJ11222341, ADJ11224032, ADJ11221292
Regular
Dec 28, 2018

JOSE BELTRAN vs. WINDSOR GARDENS HEALTHCARE CENTER, ENSTAR

The Appeals Board denied Jose Beltran's petition for removal, finding he failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, or that reconsideration would be inadequate. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Beltran had not shown a compelling need for additional discovery beyond what was already available or pursuable through the trial judge. Beltran's claims regarding procedural defects in the defendant's declaration of readiness and service were also found unpersuasive. Therefore, the petition was denied, and any further discovery needs can be addressed with the trial WCJ.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationDiscoveryPrimary Treating PhysicianPanel QMEDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
2
Case No. ADJ6674097
Regular
Jul 09, 2012

GLENDORA PARKS vs. ST. VINCENT MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding the administrative law judge's decision to proceed to trial. The defendant sought to have the agreed medical evaluator reexamine the applicant due to allegedly "stale" medical reports and to file new applications for specific injuries. However, the Board found that the defendant had not demonstrated significant prejudice and that the trial judge could properly address the issues, including the impact of surveillance videos not shown to the AME. The Board concluded that the case should proceed to trial as scheduled.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)stale reportsurveillance videospecific injurycontinuous traumatrial judgedevelop medical recordprejudicial errorirreparable harm
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,638 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