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
1
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
2
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
9
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
2
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
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. ADJ6543064
Regular
Jul 23, 2010

PEDRO McKAY vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE, Permissibly Self-Insured

The applicant sought reconsideration or removal of a WCJ's decision to admit QME reports and bifurcate issues. The Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration, finding no final order was issued and the applicant was not aggrieved. The Petition for Removal was denied as applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, especially since he introduced the QME reports and issues regarding additional panels were preserved.

WCABPedro McKayCity of RiversidePermissibly Self-InsuredADJ6543064Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME paneltoxicology
References
7
Case No. ADJ6590798; ADJ6590824
Regular
May 08, 2012

ELEANOR CASTILLO vs. SENIOR HELPER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SCO

The defendant sought to have the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) amend the Minutes of Hearing to include certain "stricken" issues. The WCAB denied this Petition for Removal. They agreed with the judge that the defendant's proposed issues, such as estoppel and contract law, are matters for the judge to consider when determining the enforceability of a lien settlement. The Board found no reason to bifurcate the issues, as evidence and testimony on all matters were already present.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMinutes of Hearinglien settlementenforceable agreementbifurcate issuesapplicant's injurycourse of employmentcosts and sanctions
References
0
Case No. ADJ1924300 (OAK0321948)
Regular
Jun 30, 2010

MICHAEL RIDER vs. THE HOME DEPOT, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT WEST SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to rescind a finding of increased permanent disability and return the case to the trial level. The Board agreed that further medical record development was needed to address potential cumulative trauma injury and apportionment issues. Specifically, the applicant's permanent disability finding was deferred pending a supplemental report from a Qualified Medical Evaluator. This action aims to avoid bifurcating issues while the deferred issues are resolved.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationApportionmentPermanent DisabilityReopenStipulated AwardCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryRes JudicataPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
2
Case No. ADJ8041070
Regular
Aug 20, 2014

JUANA MONROY vs. GATE GOURMET INC., TRAVELERS, XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied Travelers' Petition for Removal, which sought to reverse an order taking the case off calendar. The Board found that placing the matter off calendar would not cause substantial prejudice to Travelers. However, due to a genuine issue regarding injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE), the Board ordered bifurcation of that issue. The case will be reset for a priority conference, and if the AOE/COE issue is not resolved, it will proceed to trial on that specific matter.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderAOE-COEBifurcationAgreed Medical EvaluatorWCJ Report and RecommendationSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmPriority Conference CalendarPretrial Conference Statement
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,815 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