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. ADJ12349952
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

Dinh Tran vs. UL, LLC; Federal Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted in part a petition for removal filed by Dinh Tran, who sought to prevent the discovery of raw testing data from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to privacy concerns. While affirming the underlying Findings and Orders on its merits, the Board intervened to correct a clerical error and amend the orders regarding the confidentiality of medical records. The amended order strictly limits the reproduction and disclosure of raw testing materials and data, requiring their destruction after litigation and mandating defense counsel to ensure confidentiality and report any violations, thereby safeguarding the applicant's privacy rights.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorRaw Testing DataRight to PrivacyClerical ErrorsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWaiver of PrivilegeNarrowly Circumscribed DisclosureConfidentiality
References
Case No. ADJ2820557 (RDG 0106325) ADJ3301737 (RDG 0110776)
Regular
Jan 30, 2017

DEAN LAGOE vs. GRASS VALLEY FORD, AMERICAN ALTERNATIVE INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant sought to disqualify the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) due to alleged prejudice arising from applicant's disclosure of confidential settlement negotiations in a third-party credit dispute. The Appeals Board denied the disqualification petition. The Board found that merely reviewing applicant's filings regarding the credit issue, without any expressed bias or erroneous rulings by the WCJ, did not establish grounds for disqualification. Defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to prove bias or enmity on the part of the WCJ, thus not meeting their burden of proof.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasThird-Party CreditLabor Code Section 3861Settlement NegotiationsWCAB Rule 10452Code of Civil Procedure Section 641PrejudiceConfidentialityBurden of Proof
References
Case No. ADJ9641921, ADJ9640385
Regular
Mar 29, 2016

PAZ CORRALES vs. KIMPTON HOTEL AND RESTAURANT GROUP dba KHRG GOLETA, LLC, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) due to a problematic Addendum "A". Applicant contends Addendum "A" incorrectly settled their right to future attorney's fees and contains conflicting, unenforceable provisions regarding future claims and confidentiality. The Board found potential jurisdictional issues and inconsistencies with the law, returning the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the C&R should be set aside.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAddendum ALabor Code section 5710attorney's feesrescinded OACRevidentiary hearingmistake inadvertence excusable neglectunenforceable provisionsconfidential provision
References
Case No. ADJ8621679
Regular
Mar 24, 2014

Jon Arends vs. URS Federal Support Services, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company, administered by Sedgwick Claims Management Services

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding a prior order that denied his motion to disqualify defense counsel. The Board found that the applicant's former employer's attorneys, Seyfarth Shaw, previously represented him in a related civil matter. This prior representation created a conflict of interest under professional conduct rules, as Seyfarth likely obtained confidential information material to the current workers' compensation case. Therefore, Seyfarth Shaw and its attorneys are disqualified from representing the defendant in this matter.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMotion to DisqualifyConflict of InterestRule 3-310(E)Joint Defense AgreementAttorney-Client PrivilegeConfidential InformationSubstantial Relationship Test
References
Case No. ADJ6974901
Regular
Nov 18, 2011

JOHN SWENNING, JR. vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO; Permissibly SelfInsured, Administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the defendant sought discovery of documents related to potential misconduct and impeachment evidence. The applicant had a separate settlement agreement with the Fresno County District Attorney's Office, which included a confidentiality clause and required the expurgation of his personnel file. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's discovery motion, subject to the condition that any personnel file produced must be the expurgated version provided under the settlement agreement. This ruling allows for the requested discovery while respecting the terms of the prior settlement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSettlement AgreementMutual ReleaseConfidentiality ClauseIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpineKneesDistrict Attorney's InvestigatorPetition for Discovery
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. SFO 0471491
Regular
May 17, 2008

Leonard Desmuke vs. Marine Terminals Corp., Majestic Insurance Company

The Appeals Board granted removal, reversing the WCJ's denial of attorney Grimes' petition to be relieved as counsel. The Board found that Grimes had established sufficient cause due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, stemming from the applicant's withdrawal from a settlement and ongoing disputes, despite the applicant's objections. The Board emphasized that the applicant's alleged unwarranted claim or discovery issues could not be substantiated without violating ethical duties of confidentiality.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Be Relieved as CounselAttorney-Client Relationship BreakdownUnwarranted ClaimEthical Duty of ConfidentialityAttorney of RecordWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeMandatory Settlement ConferenceIn Camera Hearing
References
Case No. ADJ423557 (ANA 0341897)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

BARTOLLO TERRONES vs. REMEDY TEMP, RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY, U.S. TILE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Select Staffing's petition for removal, upholding a WCJ's order compelling depositions and document production. Select argued the WCJ lacked jurisdiction over its non-party witnesses and demanded confidential financial documents. The WCAB found Labor Code Section 5710 allows compelling depositions of non-party witnesses, and the WCJ has jurisdiction to order production of the purchase agreement, with claims of privilege to be adjudicated later. No substantial prejudice to Select was found to warrant disturbing the WCJ's order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDeposition of WitnessesMotion to Compel AttendanceNotice to ProduceStaffing AgencyGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)Labor Code Section 5710
References
Case No. ADJ8984436
Regular
Aug 30, 2019

GUADALUPE RODRIGUEZ vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

This case involves applicant Guadalupe Rodriguez's claim for a psychiatric and internal system injury against County of Riverside. The administrative law judge (WCJ) denied the claim, finding it was substantially caused by lawful, good faith personnel actions under Labor Code Section 3208.3(h). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the case for further proceedings. This was because the WCJ and the medical evaluator's analyses regarding personnel actions and causation were deficient, requiring further development of the record.

Labor Code Section 3208.3(h)psychiatric injuryinternal system injurygood faith personnel actionsCounty of San Bernardino v. WCAB (McCoy)substantial causepredominant causeagreed medical evaluator (AME)qualified medical evaluator (PQME)Rolda analysis
References
Case No. ADJ4547993 (LAO0883860)
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

Brenda Ledesma vs. American Home Assurance, administered by Sedgwick CMS, on behalf of Verizon Communications

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's order for sanctions. The Board found that the lien claimant, the Employment Development Department (EDD), was not given adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard before sanctions were imposed. Furthermore, there are significant procedural issues regarding the service of the initial order compelling the production of records. The case is remanded for further proceedings to properly develop the record and provide due process.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder for SanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Sedgwick Claims Management ServicesEmployment Development DepartmentWCJNotice and Opportunity to be HeardConfidentialityPrivacy Rights
References
Showing 1-10 of 23 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