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

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. ADJ1601260 (VNO 0434802)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

SIMON GARCIA, JR. vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration to allow attorney fees on the applicant's life pension award. While affirming the original award, the Board deferred the issue of attorney fees pending an investigation into whether counsel adequately notified the applicant of his right to independent counsel and counsel's adverse interest per CCR §10778. The WCJ will determine compliance with this notice requirement upon remand.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityAttorney FeeLife PensionReopening ClaimLien ClaimantWCJAdverse Interest
References
0
Case No. ADJ1862937 (VNO 0503723)
Regular
May 07, 2012

TRAVIS GRANT vs. SIERRACIN CORPORATION (PPG INDUSTRIES), administered by AVIZENT RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought to revive a December 9, 2008 dismissal order, arguing it was valid under Appeals Board Rule 10852. However, the Board found this dismissal order void *ab initio* because it was issued without the required notice of intention to dismiss and opportunity to be heard, as mandated by CCR Title 8, Section 10582. Therefore, the prior finding that the applicant's claim had not been dismissed was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinding of FactOrder of DismissalRule 10852Rule 10582Lack of ProsecutionNotice of Intention to DismissVoid Ab InitioAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ1677684
Regular
Feb 04, 2011

RENEE HOLLOWAY, vs. ROSS STORES; SEDGWICK CMS,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The claimant's attorney, Jerry Jacobson, sought to increase his awarded attorney fees from $4,800 to $6,000, alleging the original order conflicted with the compromise agreement. However, the Board found the petition non-compliant with CCR §10778 for failing to provide proof of service on the applicant regarding the attorney's adverse interest and the applicant's right to independent counsel. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on this procedural ground.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney FeesAdverse InterestIndependent CounselProof of ServicePetition for ReconsiderationDismissal
References
0
Case No. ADJ7782081
Regular
Nov 06, 2013

IGNACIO PIMENTEL vs. CASA LA GOLONDRINA, PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The defendant argued the applicant's testimony was not credible and alleged fraud based on new evidence from co-workers. However, the Board found the evidence, including co-worker testimony and the employer's report, supported the applicant's account. The Board also found the defendant's petition did not meet the requirements for newly discovered evidence or fraud under CCR § 10856.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ credibilityGarza v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd.course of employmenttemporary disabilityfurther medical treatmentsubstantial evidenceapplicant's testimonynewly discovered evidence
References
1
Case No. ADJ7457572
Regular
Sep 12, 2011

LYNN MOTT vs. UCI MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding a denied attorney fee request under Labor Code section 5710. The applicant sought fees for a deposition attended by a non-attorney law graduate with extensive experience. The Board rescinded the prior denial, remanding the case for further proceedings. Applicant's counsel must now demonstrate compliance with *Arriaga* and CCR 10773 regarding supervision and disclosure of the non-attorney representative's status. Failure to do so will result in the denial of the fee request.

Labor Code Section 5710attorney feeshearing representativenon-attorney representativesupervisiondisclosureArriagaRule 10773petition for reconsiderationworkers' compensation appeals board
References
2
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592), ADJ224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Jul 11, 2012

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM, INC., and SYSMASTER CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE CO

Applicant Hamid Khazaeli has been declared a vexatious litigant under CCR Title 8, Section 10782, requiring pre-filing approval for any filings with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) unless represented by an attorney. His "Petition for Reconsideration, Removal, Disqualification, and to Compel Testimony" filed on June 29, 2012, was reviewed. The WCAB did not accept this petition for filing, deeming it largely duplicative of prior dismissed and rejected filings. This decision reinforces the applicant's status as a vexatious litigant subject to strict pre-filing review protocols.

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderCCR Title 8 Section 10782Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalDisqualificationCompel TestimonyJudicial OfficersQuasi-Judicial OfficersAppeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ1191428 (LBO 0310118)
Regular
Aug 09, 2010

RUBEN GOMEZ-SOTO vs. NMI, INC.

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The Appeals Board granted removal, modifying the WCJ's order to require the defendant to produce *all* medical reports in its possession to the lien claimant, not just those intended for reliance, pursuant to CCR $\S 10608$. The Board struck the WCJ's provision requiring the lien claimant to prove market rate for interpreters, finding the issue was not properly before the judge. While the lien claimant alleged WCJ bias, the Board found no sufficient evidence of enmity or prejudice based on the record. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the Appeals Board's decision.

RemovalLien ClaimantWCJ OrderMedical ReportsMarket RateInterpreter FeesBiasDisqualification8 Cal. Code Reg. 10608Labor Code 5710
References
16
Case No. ADJ1746651 (LBO 0396330)
Regular
Aug 10, 2010

NORMA RAMIREZ vs. GIANT DOLLAR, FIRST COMP OMAHA

The Appeals Board granted removal and amended the WCJ's order, requiring the defendant to produce *all* medical reports in their possession, not just those they intend to rely upon, per CCR title 8, section 10608. The Board struck the provision requiring the lien claimant to prove market rates for interpreters, finding it was not properly before the WCJ and the law already outlines this burden. The Board denied the lien claimant's request to disqualify the WCJ, finding no evidence of bias despite the lien claimant's disagreement with the WCJ's rulings and actions. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalLien claimantMedical reportsMarket rateInterpreter servicesBiasDisqualificationWCJCode of Regulations
References
15
Case No. ADJ6645567
Regular
Mar 26, 2012

DARLENE BERKE vs. BLOOMINGDALES, MACYS CORPORATE SERVICES

This case concerns a dispute over the disqualification of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Dr. Monosson, due to alleged ex parte communication initiated by the doctor regarding deposition fees. The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying finding was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal and rescinded the disqualification, ruling that Dr. Monosson was not disqualified. The Board emphasized that Labor Code section 4062.3(f) and CCR, Title 8, Section 35(k) protect the aggrieved party's election rights, and here, the applicant, the aggrieved party, did not seek a new QME.

Panel Qualified Medical EvaluatorDisqualificationEx Parte CommunicationPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 4062.3Aggrieved PartyMedical ReportsDeposition FeesPrepayment
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 10 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