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. SAC 355392
Regular
Jan 29, 2008

JANELL J. HASTINGS vs. GEORGE VISMAN dba HIGH HILL RANCH, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, which sought to compel a psychiatric or psychological consultation. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's reasoning that a panel for psychological issues is provided by the Division of Workers' Compensation if parties do not agree on a Qualified Medical Evaluator. Therefore, the applicant's request for removal to obtain this specific consultation was denied.

Petition for RemovalPsychiatric consultationPsychological consultationQualified Medical EvaluatorAdministrative Director Rule 32(c)Agreed Medical EvaluatorDivision of Workers' CompensationMedical UnitPanelWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ6671882
Regular
Jul 31, 2009

ANGELICA ALMANZA vs. VOLER TEAM APPAREL, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

In this case, the defendant sought reconsideration of an award requiring neurological and psychiatric consultations for the applicant. The defendant argued that a psychiatric consultation was barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(d) as the applicant had less than six months of employment. However, the Appeals Board found the record inadequate to determine if a psychiatric injury was actually claimed. Therefore, the Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the matter for further proceedings to establish a proper record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAngelica AlmanzaVoler Team ApparelBerkshire Hathaway Homestate CompaniesADJ6671882ReconsiderationFindings and AwardNeurological consultationsPsychiatric consultationsIndustrial injury
References
Case No. ADJ3218661 (OAK 0339889)
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

CHANCE ROLLINS vs. JOHN MARTIN STABLES, INC.; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE administered by AIG, CLAIMS SERVICES

The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ's ruling was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and denied the applicant's request for a neurology consultation under Labor Code §4601(a). The matter was returned to the trial level with instructions to issue an order for a new QME panel in neurology, as Dr. Jamasbi's request for a consultative neurological evaluation constituted good cause for a new panel under 8 Cal. Code Regs. §31.7. Attorney fees for the ex parte communication were upheld.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code 4601(a)Labor Code 4062.3QMEAgreed Medical EvaluatorNeurological ConsultMedical DirectorSpecialty Panel
References
Case No. ADJ3605789 (GOL 0101314), ADJ2387995 (GOL 0101316), ADJ460036 (GOL 0101315)
Regular
Jul 26, 2012

JORGE VIVANCO vs. NEVERLAND VALLEY RANCH, ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON, MJJ PRODUCTIONS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY, UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, MONARCH CONSULTING dba PES PAYROLL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the original findings regarding employment for both United Staffing Associates and Monarch Consulting. The Board found that United Staffing Associates was never the applicant's employer, rescinding findings that they were the employer on October 8, 2007, and for a cumulative trauma period. Regarding Monarch Consulting, the Board found they were not the employer on October 2, 2006, but were the general employer from March 2006 through August 30, 2007, with specific exclusions, reversing the prior ruling on the specific injury date. The case was returned for further proceedings consistent with these revised findings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJorge VivancoNeverland Valley RanchEstate of Michael JacksonMJJ ProductionsTravelers IndemnityUnited Staffing AssociatesAmerican Home Assurance CompanyMonarch ConsultingPES Payroll
References
Case No. ADJ1682557
Regular
Jun 30, 2018

PAUL MORAD vs. 2365 OAK RIDGE WAY; ONE BEACON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal because the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's decision to take the case off calendar. The WCJ correctly removed the case from the trial calendar due to incomplete discovery, specifically the lack of a permanent and stationary report for orthopedic injuries and pending dental/eye consultations. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, finding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if adverse to the petitioner later. Therefore, removal, an extraordinary remedy, was not granted.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadequate remedyreconsiderationLabor Code §5502(d)(3)Mandatory Settlement Conferencediscovery
References
Case No. ADJ655912 (SDO 0342137) ADJ677760 (SDO 0342143)
Regular
Feb 11, 2009

MARIA E. GARCIA vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration. The Board upheld the trial judge's decision to deny massage therapy, finding it not medically necessary per ACOEM guidelines and not supported by the treating physician's reports. Conversely, the Board affirmed the need for a sleep study and orthopedic/psychiatric consults based on the primary treating physician's consistent recommendations, rejecting the defendant's challenges to the exclusion of PQME reports and admission of other evidence. Ultimately, the Board found substantial medical evidence supported the original award and denied both parties' requests for review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderNeckFurther Medical TreatmentSleep StudyOrthopedic ConsultPsychiatric ConsultMassage TherapyPanel Qualified Medical Examiner
References
Case No. SAL 96100; 96096
Regular
Jul 03, 2007

JEANNE LAWRENCE vs. CYPRESS URGENT CARE and PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE, TENET/DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA

This case involves a worker who sustained two industrial injuries, the first in 2001 with Cypress Urgent Care and the second in 2001 with Tenet/Doctors Hospital of Manteca. The defendant, Tenet/Doctors Hospital, sought reconsideration of a joint findings and award that attributed 25% of the worker's temporary disability and vocational rehabilitation costs to their injury. The WCAB granted reconsideration, finding that while the second injury occurred after the first, evidence indicated the first injury contributed to the worker's need for benefits, thus supporting the apportionment.

WCABReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Total Disability (TTD)Vocational RehabilitationApportionmentConsecutive InjuriesMedical TreatmentSelf-Insured
References
Case No. ADJ2445523 (SAL 0073199)
Regular
Jun 26, 2014

JUANITA NUNO vs. SAFEWAY, INC., Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Safeway's petition for reconsideration and removal concerning a finding about a potential surgical consult. The Board found the judge's finding was not a final order subject to reconsideration as it was prospective and contingent. Similarly, it was not an order or decision subject to removal because it did not definitively order any action or decide any rights. Safeway's argument that applicant's trust in a specific doctor was irrelevant was not addressed as the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAmended Findings and OrderMedical Provider Network (MPN)Labor Code Section 4616Primary Treating PhysicianSurgical ConsultExpedited HearingDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
Case No. ADJ5738297
Regular
Apr 13, 2011

Douglas Riedo vs. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UCSB & SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for removal and rescinded an order compelling attendance at a medical evaluation. The WCAB found that the employer failed to comply with Administrative Director Rule 32(d) regarding the selection of a consulting physician and rejected the employer's reliance on Labor Code section 4064(d). The Board clarified that parties cannot obtain multiple evaluations on the same issue until they receive a favorable opinion, a practice known as "doctor shopping."

Petition for RemovalRescind OrderLabor Code section 4050Labor Code section 4060Labor Code section 4062Labor Code section 4062.2compensable consequence injuriesorthopedic qualified medical evaluator (QME)Administrative Director Rule 32(d)Labor Code section 4064(d)
References
Case No. ADJ3773479 (SAL 0119774)
Regular
Mar 12, 2013

MARTHA MONROY vs. BLACKSTONE CONSULTING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by Martha Monroy against Blackstone Consulting, Inc. and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration, citing that it was not filed from a final order as required by Labor Code sections 5900(a), 5902, and 5903. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, adopting the WCJ's report, as Monroy failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Therefore, the petition was dismissed and removal denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory DecisionRemovalWCJ ReportIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedyLabor CodeCal. Code Regs.
References
Showing 1-10 of 325 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