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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ9741944, ADJ9741226
Regular
Jan 29, 2018

DARREN ROGERS vs. NATIONAL BEEF, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted Med-Legal's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's orders for Med-Legal to produce a fee agreement with Chisvin Law Group and for applicant's attorney to appear and testify. The Board found that the fee agreement is a privileged lawyer-client communication protected by the Evidence Code and that compelling the applicant's former attorney to testify without a subpoena violates procedural requirements. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantWCJ OrdersPrivileged DocumentAttorney-Client PrivilegeContractual AgreementsChisvin Law GroupApplicant's AttorneyWitness TestimonySubpoena Requirement
References
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. ADJ4363797
Regular
Jun 27, 2012

JOHN TRAN vs. TUNG KEE NOODLE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION in liquidation

This case concerns whether the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) can depose Lee Caballero, a non-attorney representative for lien claimant Dan Ho, D.C., regarding his relationship with Dr. Ho. CIGA seeks to determine if the lien was assigned to Caballero, which would exclude it from CIGA's coverage. The Board rescinded the prior order denying the deposition and allowed CIGA to depose Caballero about his agreement with Dr. Ho, provided a written agreement is not produced. However, the deposition is limited to questions concerning the assignment of the lien, excluding confidential communications about the claim's merits.

CIGAlien claimantnon-attorney lay representativedepositionassignmentInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)(B)confidentiality privilegeattorney-client privilegeattorney work product privilegecase of first impression
References
Case No. ADJ7474686
Regular
Apr 28, 2011

RONALD DENTON vs. DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding a prior order that allowed the applicant's deposition before receiving defendant's witness statements. Applicant claimed prejudice from this sequence, while defendant asserted attorney-client privilege over the statements. The Board adopted the WCJ's recommendation, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and record development. The Board also noted the initial lack of documentation for the disputed order and potential sanctions if no statements exist.

Petition for RemovalRescind OrderWitness StatementsAttorney Work Product PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWaiverDevelop Record
References
Case No. ADJ8067615
Regular
Apr 15, 2015

Latonia Bowman vs. SARA LEE CORPORATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an attorney's request to be relieved due to irreconcilable differences with his client. The applicant had accused the attorney of misconduct and collusion with the insurance company. Although the applicant later expressed remorse and a desire to be a better client, the Appeals Board found the attorney-client relationship had irrevocably deteriorated. Consequently, the Board granted the attorney's petition and relieved his firm as counsel for the applicant.

Petition for RemovalDismissal of AttorneyIrreconcilable DifferencesAttorney-Client PrivilegeMisconductFraudCollusionBreakdown of RelationshipWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ9426494
Regular
Jun 10, 2015

BARBARA SWENSON vs. COMPASS HEALTH, MURPHY AND BEANE, INC.

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the applicant sought interview transcripts and statements of defense witnesses. The judge initially ordered the defendant to produce all such materials. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the order was overbroad and violated due process by failing to account for work product and attorney-client privilege. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, amending the original order. The amended order requires the defendant to provide requested materials, excluding those protected by privilege, for which a privilege log must be filed.

Petition for RemovalInterview TranscriptsWitness StatementsWork ProductAttorney-Client PrivilegePrivilege LogDue ProcessOverbroad OrderAppeals BoardWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ3256213 (AHM 0147852)
Regular
Feb 11, 2013

SHIRLEY LAPPI vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a dispute over attorney-client privilege concerning documents within an employer's workers' compensation claims file. The defendant sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order to disclose certain documents. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, finding the order was not final, and granted removal. The Board rescinded the order and remanded the case for appointment of a special master to conduct an in camera review of the disputed documents.

Privilege LogAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineIn Camera ReviewSpecial MasterPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalFindings and OrderDiscoveryClaims File
References
Case No. ADJ4349754 (OXN 124391)
Regular
Aug 16, 2013

JOSE TOSTADO vs. JM SMUCKER COMPANY, LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration of a $\$ 2500$ sanction imposed on defense counsel by a Workers' Compensation Judge. The defense argued the sanction was settled by a Compromise and Release, lacked evidence, and infringed on attorney-client privilege. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the sanction was not settled by the C&R and that claims of privilege did not excuse the misrepresentation. The WCJ found the attorney misrepresented the filing of a Medicare Set Aside analysis, constituting a sanctionable offense despite claims of reasonable belief or privilege.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionCompromise and ReleaseMedicare Set AsideCMSDeclaration of ReadinessAttorney-Client PrivilegeMisrepresentationOfficer of the Court
References
Case No. ADJ7247116 ADJ7241415 ADJ7407598 ADJ9052220 ADJ9432209
Regular
Feb 12, 2015

DOROTHY TRISTAN vs. CITY OF FRESNO, AMERICAN ALL-RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for removal regarding a discovery order. The employer argued that releasing documents related to a prior DFEH/EEOC discrimination claim and allowing a continued deposition would cause irreparable harm due to privilege concerns. The Board found the employer failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, emphasizing that privilege objections can still be raised for specific documents. The Board also noted the prolonged discovery dispute and encouraged expeditious resolution of the underlying workers' compensation claims.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionDocument ProductionPrivileged RecordsDFEHEEOCLabor Code Section 132aDiscovery DisputeMandatory Settlement Conference
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,664 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