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. ADJ2488411 (RIV 0017588)
Regular
Jun 30, 2011

ROBERT DOODY vs. MERLI CONCRETE PUMPING COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

Defendant Merli Concrete Pumping Company petitioned for removal, arguing insufficient discovery time regarding the applicant's petition for third-party credit and restitution. However, prior to the Appeals Board ruling on the petition, the parties jointly requested and the judge granted a continuance off the trial calendar. Consequently, the defendant's petition for removal became moot. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as moot.

Petition for RemovalThird-party CreditRestitutionDiscoveryOff CalendarMootWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPro Tempore JudgeContinuanceJoint Request
References
Case No. ADJ2635006 (STK 0206833)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

SAMUEL B. JOHNSON, III vs. CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying discovery requests was not a final order. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The Board affirmed the WCJ's discovery ruling as reasonable and returned the matter to the trial level. The applicant may seek reconsideration of a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJdiscovery requestsRequest for AdmissionsRequest for Authenticationfinal ordersubstantial prejudiceirreparable harm
References
Case No. ADJ8061042
Regular
Feb 27, 2013

GREGORY GROVER vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the County of Sacramento challenging a WCJ's order continuing a trial date. The defendant argued that discovery remained incomplete and questioned the substantiality of a QME's report. However, the parties subsequently agreed to continue the trial to a new date. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as moot because the issues raised were rendered irrelevant by the new trial scheduling. The Board clarified that any discovery or evidentiary disputes should be addressed at the trial level.

Petition for RemovalWCJQMEorthopedic surgerysubstantial medical evidencemootdiscoveryDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedcontinuanceAppeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ7192030
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

Rolando Lemus vs. TWENTY FOUR SEVEN SECURITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding the administrative law judge's order continuing a hearing was procedural, not final. The Board also denied the applicant's petition for removal, ruling he failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the three-week continuance. The applicant's refusal to agree to a rescheduled date and their counsel's verification issues further supported the Board's decision. Ultimately, the Board sought to expedite the case by remanding it for a prompt priority conference.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRolando LemusTwenty Four Seven Securitypetition for reconsiderationpetition for removalcontinuancepriority conferenceadministrative law judgesubstantial prejudiceirreparable harm
References
Case No. ADJ1871643 (SDO 0291759)
Regular
Oct 23, 2017

JOSE GOMEZ vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, REHABILITATION PAROLE & COMMUNITY SERVICES, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's award of medical treatment. The defendant's Utilization Review denial was deemed untimely because their Request for Information was served more than five business days after the initial request, excluding the day after Thanksgiving. The Board clarified that the day after Thanksgiving is considered a normal business day for UR purposes under Labor Code section 4600.4. Therefore, the defendant's untimely RFI did not extend the UR deadline, and the requested medical treatment was properly authorized.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewRequest for AuthorizationRequest for InformationTimelinessBusiness DayLabor Code Section 4600.4Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPrimary Treating Physician
References
Case No. ADJ7199986 ADJ7399845
Regular
Oct 03, 2011

ELMIRA SMITH vs. PACIFIC AUTISM CENTER FOR EDUCATION, TRI- STAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant sought removal to challenge a finding that defendant's requested Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel was properly assigned. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the finding, and determined that *neither* panel was properly assigned. Both panel requests were found to be premature as they were made before the statutory 10-day period for agreeing on an Agreed Medical Evaluator had expired, plus an additional five days for mail service. This decision clarifies the timing requirements for QME panel requests following an unsuccessful attempt to select an AME.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Labor Code section 4062.2(b)WCAB Rule 10507Messele v. Pitco FoodsInc.Premature RequestPanel AssignmentMedical Unit
References
Case No. ADJ8897986
Regular
Feb 22, 2019

DOUG BROCK vs. PLACER COUNTY, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by INTERCARE ROSEVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to a lien claimant for photocopying services. The Board overturned the WCJ's decision, which had barred claims for services over 18 months prior to the lien filing date. The Board found that, similar to ongoing medical treatment, a series of connected record requests constituted a continuing pattern, justifying the lien filing based on the last date of service. The case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.

Med-Legal PhotocopyLien ClaimStatute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 4903.5(a)Petition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryCorrectional OfficerCompromise and ReleaseSubpoenasOngoing Medical Treatment
References
Case No. ADJ1273904 (MON 0236591) ADJ164684 (MON 0236590)
Regular
Feb 05, 2020

BETTY BAUER vs. RIP GRIFFIN, CIGA on behalf of HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision dismisses a lien claimant's Petition for Removal. The petition was filed after the administrative law judge (WCJ) scheduled trial and denied a continuance request. However, the WCJ subsequently issued an order continuing the matter, rendering the Petition for Removal automatically dismissed. Consequently, the WCAB will not consider the lien claimant's supplemental pleading request.

Petition for RemovalWCJlien claimantautomatically dismissedsupplemental pleadingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAliquidationadministrative law judgetrial
References
Case No. ADJ2073136 (LAO 0859208)
Regular
Dec 27, 2017

J ACQUELINE STELLY vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS SERVICES, INC.

The applicant, Jacqueline Stelly, filed a Petition for Removal and an objection to a trial setting. Subsequently, at the scheduled hearing, both parties jointly requested and were granted a continuance. As a result of this continuance, the applicant's Petition for Removal became moot. Therefore, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalDismissedMootContinuanceObjection to Trial SettingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ2073136LAO 0859208Pomona District OfficeVerizon Communications
References
Case No. GRO 0029923
Regular
Jun 23, 2008

MYCAH DILBECK vs. DAIRY CREEK GOLF COURSE RESTAURANT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petitions for disqualification and removal of the assigned judge. The applicant sought a new judge and a continuance, but the Board found the disqualification petition untimely and lacked evidence of bias. The Board also denied the removal petition, citing no prior request for continuance and sufficient time for the applicant to review case files.

WCABdisqualificationremovalpetitioncontinuancetimelyWCJmandatory settlement conferencepretrial conference statementLabor Code section 5502(e)(3)
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,426 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