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. ADJ7756785
Regular
Nov 02, 2013

MAHIN BARAB vs. MACY'S LOGISTICS AND OPERATIONS

This case involves Macy's seeking removal of a trial setting order due to a defective Declaration of Readiness (DOR). Macy's argued the DOR was improperly served and failed to provide for a medical evaluation under Labor Code section 4061(i). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the removal petition, rescinded the trial setting, and returned the case to the trial level. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, which agreed with Macy's contentions regarding the defective DOR and lack of proper service.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readinessdefective DORLabor Code section 4061(i)service requirementsMinute Orderrescindedtrial levelWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ2753128 (VNO 0558451)
Regular
Sep 01, 2012

FARAMARZ MORVARI vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, BROADSPIRE SERVICES

This case involves a defendant's request for removal concerning an order setting a trial after a mandatory settlement conference. The defendant argues the trial should not have been set because the applicant's participation in settlement negotiations and his Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) were not in good faith, hindering essential discovery. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the applicant's DOR was legally defective for failing to specify good faith settlement efforts. Consequently, the trial order was rescinded, and the case was taken off calendar.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Panel Qualified Medical Examiner (QME)Jens DimmickM.D.Good Faith EffortDiscoveryOff Calendar
References
0
Case No. ADJ14242832
Regular
Mar 07, 2025

EHAB GUIRGUIS vs. CIRCLE K/76 GAS STATION, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

Defendant sought removal of an Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) setting the matter for trial. Defendant objected to applicant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) as defective due to a failure to list good faith efforts for resolution and incomplete discovery regarding a vocational rehabilitation report. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition, the applicant's answer, and the WCJ's report. The WCAB granted the Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter for further proceedings to allow for proper development of the record and address the defendant's objections to the DOR and discovery issues, emphasizing the right to due process and a fair hearing.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWCJ ObjectionGood Faith EffortsDiscoveryVocational Rehabilitation ReportDue ProcessFair HearingRescind OrderReturn to Trial Level
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boots v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Peter and Cindy Boots filed a products liability action against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., alleging injury to Peter Boots from a defective utility knife. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no manufacturing defect, no design defect as the proximate cause, substantial modification of the product, and that Plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim, finding the plaintiff's expert report admissible. It also denied summary judgment on the design defect claim due to misleading design, and rejected the substantial modification argument. Finally, the court denied the proximate cause argument, as it was not established that Plaintiff's actions were the *sole* cause of injury.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectDesign DefectProximate CauseExpert WitnessUtility KnifeStrict LiabilityProduct SafetyFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp.

Justice Saxe dissents from the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied. The dissent contends that the sidewalk defect, a quarter-inch protruding metal object, is not trivial and presents an actionable tripping hazard, citing precedents that reject a minimal dimension test for defects. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that the defendant's claim of lack of notice is insufficient to establish an absence of constructive notice, especially given that the defect was present since a new sidewalk installation over two years prior to the accident. Justice Saxe distinguishes the current case from prior trivial defect cases, emphasizing that the defect here constitutes a potential trap or snare, thus raising a question of fact for a jury.

Sidewalk DefectTrivial Defect DoctrineSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeTripping HazardPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryDuty to Maintain PropertyIndependent Contractor LiabilityAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. ADJ7604114; ADJ7607366
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

JOSE REYES VARGAS vs. CRUNCH METALS; HARTFORD

The Appeals Board granted applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order continuing the matters to trial. The Board found the defendant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR) defective for failing to specify any principal issues, thereby hindering the applicant's trial preparation. Furthermore, there was no record of a required Pretrial Conference Statement, and no evidence of applicant's lack of diligence. Consequently, the case was taken off calendar.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceQualified Medical EvaluatorPretrial Conference StatementLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)Court Administrator Rule 10250(d)Industrial InjuryCumulative TraumaSpinal Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ8565377; ADJ8565379 ADJ8550223
Regular
May 25, 2016

MELANI LOPEZ vs. EMPIRE TRANSPORTATION, INC., NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal of a trial setting order due to the applicant's defective Declaration of Readiness to Proceed. The defendant argued the DOR failed to detail good faith dispute resolution efforts and improperly claimed all discovery was complete while raising discovery as an issue. The Appeals Board granted removal to limit the trial scope. Consequently, the trial is now exclusively focused on whether the applicant sustained a work-related injury, deferring all other issues.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)defective DORgood faith effortsdiscoveryscope of trialinjury arising out of and occurring in the course of employmentdeferred issuestrial levelWCJ Report and Recommendation
References
0
Case No. ADJ1377502 (MON 0315276), ADJ1380199 (MON 0315277), ADJ1836874 (MON 0315278), ADJ777806 (MON 0348785)
Regular
Jul 08, 2013

JOSEPH D. MORENO vs. ALBERTSON'S, Administered by SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant, Albertson's, petitioned for removal, seeking to rescind an order continuing the cases to trial. The defendant argued the applicant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed was deficient regarding settlement efforts and that they had a due process right to depose Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs). The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice from the alleged DOR defect. The Board also noted the trial judge has authority to order further discovery if needed post-trial.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedGood Faith EffortsSettlementAgreed Medical EvaluatorsAMEDue ProcessDeposeWCJAppeals Board
References
1
Case No. ADJ7233668 ADJ7233692 ADJ7941780
Regular
Sep 23, 2014

WALTER MENJIVAR (DECEASED) vs. ABLE BODY LABOR, BROADSPIRE

In *Menjivar (Deceased) v. Able Body Labor; Broadspire*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal. The applicant sought to remove the cases from trial, arguing that an Agreed Medical Evaluator's report indicated a need for psychiatric expertise and that defendants' Declaration of Readiness to Proceed was defective. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that any objections to the DOR were waived due to untimeliness, and that the applicant had prior opportunities to address discovery issues. Defense counsel was also admonished for failing to include her state bar number.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportDEIDRA E. LOWEKATHERINE ZALEWSKIMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDOR defectsinformal resolutionpsychiatrist opinion
References
0
Case No. ADJ2661083 (AHM 0097587) ADJ2316310 (AHM 0088976)
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

GENEEN RODRIGUEZ vs. STATEK CORPORATION, ACE USA

This case involves defendant Statek Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an award granting applicant Geneen Rodriguez a spinal cord stimulator. The Administrative Law Judge found the utilization review (UR) determination materially defective due to communication issues and the reviewer's specialty. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and found the UR determination was not materially defective. The Board concluded that any alleged defects were not significant enough to bypass the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process.

Utilization ReviewSpinal Cord StimulatorMaterially DefectiveIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Medical NecessityCompetency of ReviewerInternal MedicineTimely CommunicationDubon v. World Restoration
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 960 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