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. ADJ394468 (OAK 0325496)
Regular
Apr 26, 2018

Maria Padilla vs. IN-HOME SUPPORT SERVICES, YORK, RISK SERVICES GROUP

Applicant Maria Padilla petitioned for removal after a WCJ's discovery order allegedly closed discovery, denying her due process. The WCJ recommended granting removal, clarifying that discovery was intended to be stayed, not closed. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the order closing discovery, and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings. This decision ensures further discovery can be properly considered based on the WCJ's clarified intent.

Petition for RemovalDiscovery OrderWCJDue ProcessStay DiscoveryReport and RecommendationRescind OrderDecision After RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ7959067
Regular
Jul 17, 2012

MOJGAN RAZAVY vs. SPHERION CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the order allowing further discovery. The Board found that discovery should have closed at the mandatory settlement conference on March 7, 2012, as per statute. The judge erred in allowing further discovery without a threshold determination of deficient medical opinions, especially since the case had not yet proceeded to trial or submission. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, with discovery closed as of the original settlement conference date.

Petition for RemovalOrder Re: DiscoveryMandatory Settlement ConferencePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorFurther Medical TreatmentPermanent DisabilityDiscovery ClosureThreshold MatterMedical Opinion DeficiencyLabor Code Section 5502(e)(3)
References
1
Case No. ADJ8543293
Regular
Jul 07, 2015

KAREN GENOVESE vs. SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The defendant school district sought to remove a WCAB order that closed discovery. They argued the order was improper due to insufficient medical evidence and denial of due process. However, discovery was subsequently re-opened by the WCJ on May 6, 2015, after the Petition for Removal was filed. Therefore, the Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as moot because the issue of closing discovery had already been resolved.

Petition for RemovalDiscoveryWCJLabor Code 4663Labor Code 4061(i)Qualified Medical ExaminerSubstantial Medical EvidenceDue ProcessMootMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Case No. MON 310553
Regular
Sep 05, 2007

, LAZARO MARTINEZ vs. , WEDGESTONE CORP.;, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order closing discovery. The applicant argued that discovery should not have been closed as their serious and willful misconduct claim was not addressed at the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) and the case was subsequently taken off calendar. The Board agreed that the closure of discovery was improper, particularly since the case was taken off calendar, and the relevant statute does not mandate closure in such circumstances.

Petition for removalSerious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Mandatory settlement conferenceDiscovery closedTaken off calendarIndustrial injuryIncreased benefitsWCJ orderRescind order
References
0
Case No. ADJ2519091 (LAO 0824930) ADJ4160066 (LAO 0824931) ADJ188382 (LAO 0828971)
Regular
Aug 18, 1941

MARIA MARXUACH vs. WESTIN BONAVENTURE HOTEL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration in this case, upholding the judge's decision. Discovery closed by operation of law on September 12, 2007, and the applicant's attorneys failed to demonstrate due diligence in listing crucial medical reports as exhibits prior to this closure. Despite numerous continuances and attempts to amend the exhibit list, discovery was never formally reopened. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that the applicant did not establish why the exhibits could not have been presented with reasonable diligence before discovery closed.

Mandatory Settlement ConferencePre-trial conference statementdiscovery closureadministrative law judgePetition for Reconsiderationreopen discoverydue diligenceexhibition listWCJ reportWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ9743499 ADJ10108398
Regular
Oct 01, 2018

JOHN MCGEE vs. CITY OF VACAVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant City of Vacaville's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior order that closed discovery and set a trial date. The Board found that closing discovery prematurely would cause significant prejudice to the defendant. This decision stems from the defendant's ongoing, diligent efforts to conduct further discovery, specifically deposing a physician who relocated, while also pursuing global settlement options that included a related civil claim. The case is returned to the trial level for a status conference to determine future proceedings.

Petition for RemovalWCABWCJDiscovery ClosurePrejudiceIrreparable HarmQME PanelDegenerative Disc DiseaseAcromioclavicular ArthritisGlenohumeral Arthritis
References
0
Case No. ADJ1243572 (OAK 0342959)
Regular
Oct 30, 2013

MARIA ESTEBAN vs. WELLS FARGO BANK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Wells Fargo's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to take the case off calendar. The Board found that the applicant's stated strategic decision to pursue further discovery after the mandatory settlement conference violated Labor Code section 5502(d)(3), which closes discovery at that point. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for a new mandatory settlement conference, with discovery to close as of February 4, 2013. Commissioner Brass dissented, arguing removal was an extraordinary remedy not warranted here.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureVocational EvidenceDue DiligenceRescinded OrderPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorsTotal DisabilityIndustrial Injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ8162471
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

Brenda Jackson vs. Pitney Bowes, Inc., Sedgwick

In *Jackson v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.*, the employer successfully petitioned for removal, seeking to rescind an order that kept the case off calendar for an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) deposition. The Appeals Board found that discovery should have closed at the mandatory settlement conference (MSC) pursuant to Labor Code section 5502(d)(3). Since the applicant failed to demonstrate due diligence in completing discovery prior to the MSC, the Board granted removal, closed discovery as of July 23, 2013, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Order Off CalendarAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)DepositionLabor Code Section 5502(d)Discovery ClosureDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)Untimely ObjectionDue Diligence
References
0
Case No. ADJ8595467
Regular
Sep 29, 2015

JESSICA RIVERA vs. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant, Good Samaritan Hospital and Ace American Insurance Company, seeking to rescind an order closing discovery. The defendants argued that the order closing discovery would cause them substantial prejudice and irreparable harm by preventing them from obtaining a rebuttal vocational expert evaluation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ's report, but noted the defendant could request to proceed with the evaluation at trial. However, one Commissioner dissented, arguing the defendant's actions were diligent and the due process right to discovery was violated.

Petition for RemovalOrder Closing DiscoveryVocational ExpertRebuttal EvaluationDue ProcessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMandatory Settlement ConferenceAgreed Medical EvaluatorsGainfully Employed
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,616 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