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. ADJ997412 (LAO 0813526)
Regular
Oct 25, 2010

PATRICIA ANN HAYES vs. ALBERTSONS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case concerns the applicant's petition for reconsideration and removal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB dismissed the reconsideration petition, finding the prior order was not final. However, they granted the removal petition, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The WCAB found the trial judge's decision to order additional medical evaluations was premature without establishing a deficiency in the existing medical record. Finally, the applicant's petition to disqualify the trial judge was denied, as the judge's actions were not deemed to reflect a prejudgment of the case's merits.

AOE/COEfibromyalgiapsychiatric injuryorthopedic injuryAgreed Medical Examinerpetition for reconsiderationpetition for disqualificationpetition for removalFindings and Ordersdiscovery order
References
7
Case No. ADJ2948353 (SAL 0116403) ADJ803362 (SAL 0116404) ADJ2320380 (SAL 0116407)
Regular
May 04, 2009

BRIAN CARRASCO vs. CLARK PEST CONTROL, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The applicant filed a petition alleging bias by the WCJ based on 21 instances of alleged misconduct. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for removal, finding it untimely and unverified, as the applicant did not claim to be aggrieved by the last order and the petition was filed beyond the 20-day limit. Furthermore, the Board denied the disqualification petition because it was not supported by a verified affidavit and the judge in question was not currently assigned to the cases for trial. These procedural deficiencies led to the dismissal of the removal petition and denial of the disqualification petition.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ Steven D. TuanBias AllegationsUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionWCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10452Labor Code Section 5310
References
0
Case No. ADJ10447246
Regular
Dec 12, 2019

Corliss Anderson vs. WAL-MART STORES INC, YORK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied her Petition for Removal. The applicant sought reconsideration of an order suspending her petition to quash a subpoena duces tecum due to missing documentation. The Board found that the order was not a final order, making reconsideration improper, and that removal was not warranted as the applicant could still cure the deficiencies. Therefore, the applicant's requests were dismissed and denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumPetition to QuashOrder Suspending ActionFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery IssuePrejudice
References
8
Case No. ADJ6626132
Regular
Jan 21, 2011

IMELDA DELACRUZ LOPEZ vs. PACIFIC BELL; SEDGWICK 51460 ONTARIO

The defendant sought reconsideration and removal of a WCJ's order denying their petition to strike a Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order was not a final one. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's arguments regarding the QME report's evidentiary value and due process were not considered due to procedural deficiencies.

WCABADJ6626132Pacific BellSedgwickPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinute OrderPetition to Strike QME PanelDr. Sanatharasubstantial evidence
References
5
Case No. ADJ8925091, ADJ6820644
Regular
Aug 29, 2017

ALFRED MCKNIGHT vs. CITY OF SANTA MONICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The Board found that the petition lacked specific facts demonstrating bias, an unqualified opinion on the merits, or enmity, as required by statute. Furthermore, the Board denied the petition for a change of venue due to the applicant failing to provide sufficient reasons for the request. The WCJ's report, detailing these deficiencies, was adopted and incorporated into the Board's decision.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil Procedure section 641biasprejudiceunqualified opinionfactual basisevidentiary basis
References
7
Case No. ADJ7136909
Regular
Apr 16, 2014

BRUCE TABARACCI vs. WASTE MANAGEMENT, ACE AMERICAN, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration and dismissed their petition for removal. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge, who recommended denial. The defendant's arguments, including claims that utilization review (UR) denials were not defective and that Dr. Light's reports were inadmissible, were rejected. The Board found the UR process was procedurally deficient due to the defendant failing to provide all relevant medical records.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationLabor Code §4062IMR tractPrimary Treating Physician (PTP)Secondary Treating PhysicianUtilization Review (UR)Request for Medical Treatment Authorization
References
5
Case No. ADJ8379348
Regular
May 04, 2015

GLEN DAVIS vs. HARBOR AMERICA, dba MR HANDYMAN OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; CIGA by its servicing facility, SEDGWICK CMS, for ULLICO CASUALTY CO., in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied its Petition for Removal. The defendant improperly sought reconsideration of a non-final order setting the matter for trial, and attached excessive exhibits in violation of procedural rules. While applicant's counsel also had procedural deficiencies, these did not impact the outcome. The WCAB adopted the judge's report and its own reasoning in reaching these decisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Setting for TrialRule 10842Permanent DisabilityQMELabor Code section 4061(i)DORAdmonishment
References
0
Case No. ADJ1704477
Regular
Jul 20, 2010

DON L. KETTERING vs. DME ELEC AND FIRE PROTECTION, INTERCARE CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION FRESNO

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order to further develop the medical record was not a final order. The Board also denied the applicant's alternative Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for such an extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's opinion highlighted deficiencies in the medical evidence regarding the applicant's disability. Therefore, the applicant's attempt to obtain a 100% disability award at this stage was unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and AwardOrderPetition to ReopenMedical Opinion EvidenceAgreed Medical ExaminerPermanent DisabilitySubstantial Evidence
References
5
Case No. ADJ15495436
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

Calvin Grigsby vs. Grigsby and Associates, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered two petitions from the applicant, Calvin Grigsby: a December 9, 2024 Petition for Reconsideration and/or Removal, and a December 24, 2024 Petition for Removal. The Board dismissed the reconsideration aspect of the December 9th petition as it pertained to non-final orders and denied removal, finding no demonstration of irreparable harm. The subsequent December 24th petition was also dismissed as it challenged the same December 4, 2024 orders. The Board also noted the applicant's failure to comply with page limits for the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNonfinal OrdersLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSupplemental Pleadings
References
15
Case No. ADJ1072175
Regular
Jun 05, 2015

DENNIS PEREZ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the finding of industrial injury to the applicant's psyche. However, the Board granted the applicant's petition to amend the original award. This amendment corrects the period for temporary disability indemnity benefits, extending entitlement from November 25, 2008, to October 11, 2010, with credit for overpayments after the permanent and stationary date. The Board also admonished applicant's counsel for a pleading deficiency.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryBilateral LegsPsycheTemporary Disability IndemnityAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent and StationaryOverpayment
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 14,283 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