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. ADJ13302605; ADJ15813943
Regular
Mar 07, 2023

MATTHEW WARE vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB, LLC, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY C/O BERKLEY ENTERTAINMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, reversing the WCJ's order to set the case for a Mandatory Settlement Conference on all issues. The Board found good cause to bifurcate and try the threshold issues of California subject matter and personal jurisdiction first. Bifurcating these jurisdictional issues is deemed more efficient, as a favorable ruling for the defendant would avoid further litigation. This decision prioritizes an expedited resolution of jurisdiction to facilitate the prompt delivery of potential benefits.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceBifurcationJurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceDeclaration of ReadinessDiscoveryGood Cause
References
Case No. ADJ21 56157 (VNO 0518450)
Regular
Apr 11, 2016

RYAN LEE (Deceased), CYNTHIA VALENZUELA (widow) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONSATF, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's findings regarding the deceased correctional officer's "special mission" status and the dependents. The Board confirmed the WCJ's finding that the death was industrial under Government Code section 21537 for CALPERS benefits, which the widow irrevocably elected. All other workers' compensation death benefit claims for the minor children, burial expenses, and attorney fees were properly bifurcated for future proceedings. The case was returned to the trial level for further development on these bifurcated issues.

CALPERSspecial death benefitgoing and coming rulespecial mission exceptionindustrial causationAgreed Medical ExaminerdependencybifurcationLantz v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Government Code section 21537
References
Case No. ADJ9141320
Regular
Dec 03, 2014

, JOSE LUIS MUNOZ DAVILA, vs. , LOS ANGELES DODGERS; SEDGWICK, FIREMAN'S FUND, ESIS,

This case concerns a defendant, ACE USA, seeking removal to bifurcate the trial on the issue of jurisdiction for a professional athlete's workers' compensation claim. ACE argued it lacked due process because it wasn't adequately notified that all issues would proceed to trial. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition, finding ACE failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the administrative law judge deferring the bifurcation decision. Commissioner Lowe dissented, believing ACE would be prejudiced by proceeding to trial on unprepared issues due to insufficient notice.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardACE USAJurisdictionDue ProcessMandatory Settlement ConferencePretrial Conference StatementBifurcationLabor Code section 3600.5Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ19817053
Regular
Oct 10, 2025

TYRONNE BARNES vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant petitioned for removal from an order taking the matter off calendar, requesting that the case proceed on a bifurcated issue concerning its affirmative defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) report, which recommended denial of removal. The Board ultimately denied the petition, reiterating that removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only under conditions of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and finding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Furthermore, the Board upheld the WCJ's discretion in declining to bifurcate the issue.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderLabor Code section 3208.3(d)Affirmative DefenseBifurcationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ7262375
Regular
Apr 20, 2012

JOSE R. GONZALEZ vs. GZ \& S, INC., ONE BEACON INSURANCE

This case involves a defendant's Petition for Removal of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) order to take a workers' compensation case off calendar. The WCJ granted the request because a QME panel in psychiatry was pending, which the applicant argued was necessary for discovery. The defendant contended the WCJ should have bifurcated and heard the issue of whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal primarily because it was unverified, a defect the defendant failed to cure after being notified. Even if considered on its merits, the Board would have denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ that bifurcation was not warranted and no irreparable harm or prejudice to the defendant had been demonstrated.

Petition for RemovalWCJ ordermandatory settlement conferenceoff calendarQME panelpsychiatryAOE/COEstatute of limitationspost-termination filingbifurcation
References
Case No. ADJ1528452 (LAO 0884582)
Regular
Mar 05, 2009

ARACELY LUGO, JOSE LUGO vs. A. RIVERA TRUCKING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a workers' compensation death claim for Jose Lugo, with Aracely Lugo as the applicant. The defendant, A. Rivera Trucking, Inc. and State Compensation Insurance Fund, sought removal from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) after their request to delay a mandatory settlement conference for further discovery on dependency issues was denied. The defendant also objected to the bifurcation of the Serious and Willful Misconduct claim, arguing it would cause prejudice. The WCAB denied the petition for removal, adopting the WCJ's report which found the defendant had not demonstrated due diligence in pursuing discovery and had previously stipulated to bifurcating the Serious and Willful Misconduct claim.

Petition for RemovalDenying RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceDependency IssueSerious and Willful Misconduct PetitionBifurcationDeath ClaimCrushed PelvisApplicantDefendant
References
Case No. ADJ17817958; ADJ17817957
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

STEPHANIE TOVAR vs. UNITED PACIFIC, EVEREST PREMIER INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a petition for removal filed by the defendant against an order taking the matter off calendar. The defendant contended that the issue of its affirmative defense under Labor Code section 3208.3(d) should be bifurcated and proceed to trial. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition for removal, but not for the reasons argued by the defendant regarding bifurcation. Instead, the WCAB granted removal solely to address the issue of sanctions, finding that the defendant's petition was frivolous and potentially filed in bad faith due to fabricated citations and misrepresentations of legal precedents. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500.00 jointly and severally against the defendant parties and their attorneys.

RemovalSanctionsLabor Code section 3208.3(d)Frivolous FilingBad Faith ActionsWCJ DiscretionBifurcationPrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ8703917
Regular
Jun 08, 2015

PEDRO GUARDADO vs. PEACOCK CHEESE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns defendant Peacock Cheese Distributing Company's petition for removal, seeking a bifurcated trial on the statute of limitations before applicant's injury is established. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the request premature as the defendant still disputes the applicant's injury. The Board agreed with the Administrative Law Judge that bifurcating the statute of limitations defense prior to injury acceptance is akin to a prohibited request for judgment on the pleadings. Consequently, the defendant's petition for removal was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalStatute of LimitationsBifurcated TrialDue ProcessIrreparable HarmPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerAffirmative DefenseLabor Code Section 5409WCAB Rules
References
Case No. ADJ7472592
Regular
Sep 21, 2011

AHMAD NAIEM vs. NORDSTROMS, INC.

In this workers' compensation case, the employer, Nordstrom, Inc., petitioned for removal after the WCJ took the case off calendar to develop medical evidence. Nordstrom argued the WCJ should have allowed bifurcation of issues, specifically addressing the post-termination defense to the applicant's injury claim. The Appeals Board granted the petition, finding good cause to bifurcate the issues of whether the claim is barred by Labor Code sections 3208.3(e) and 3600(a)(10). The Board also permitted both parties to withdraw from prior stipulations regarding notice and the "good faith personnel action" defense, returning the matter to the trial level.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarMedical Evidence DevelopmentBifurcation of IssuesPost-Termination DefenseLabor Code Section 3208.3(e)Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code Section 3208.3(h)Stipulation WithdrawalGood Cause
References
Case No. ADJ11675915
Regular
Sep 25, 2019

AMBER BETTINCOURT vs. BETHANY HOME SOCIETY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate such harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The WCJ's decision not to bifurcate the statute of limitations issue was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyjudicial discretionbifurcationstatute of limitations
References
Showing 1-10 of 67 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