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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ6999645
Regular
Mar 04, 2011

SANDY DROUIN vs. HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, TRAVELERS DIAMOND BAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying order denying a deposition was not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant had argued the WCJ erred in denying their request to compel a deposition due to insufficient provision for travel expenses. The Board noted unprofessional conduct by both attorneys.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Petition to Compel AttendanceDeposition CostsTransportation ExpensesAirline E-TicketTravel ExpensesFinal OrderSubstantive RightsIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. LAO 864451
Regular
Aug 18, 2008

JOUNG SU-LIOU vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/DPSS, ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order awarding the applicant $\$139.04$ in deposition expenses and $\$843.75$ in attorney's fees. The defendant argued it was denied due process because the order was entered without a hearing. However, the Board found that the applicant complied with procedural rules allowing for a "walk-through" filing of the petition for fees. The defendant had ample time to object to the petition after service and failed to do so, thus waiving their due process claim. Therefore, the Board denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code § 5710(b)Attorney's FeesReimbursement of ExpensesDeposition ExpensesWCJ OrderDue ProcessWalk-through BasisWCAB Rule 10890(b)(4)
References
Case No. ADJ4353489 (VNO 0469742)
Regular
Aug 18, 2011

, JEFFREY JONES, vs. , INTERLINK MORTGAGE SERVICES; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND,

This case concerns a claimant's eight-year delay in pursuing his workers' compensation claim, during which time he filed an application but took no further action. The claimant then sought to depose a retired QME who is elderly and ill. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no good cause for the deposition due to the claimant's unexplained delay and lack of stated necessity. Consequently, the Board rescinded the orders compelling the deposition and denied the claimant's petition.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)DepositionOrder Compelling DepositionStrike ReportIndustrial InjuryApplication for Adjudication of ClaimPetition for DismissalPetition to Compel DepositionBurden of Proof
References
Case No. ADJ3299212 (MON 0205468)
Regular
Apr 09, 2012

LISA WEILMANN vs. UNITED TEMPORARY SERVICES; TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT, LTD.

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order awarding attorney's fees and sanctions. The Appeals Board found that the defendant and its attorneys engaged in bad-faith actions and frivolous tactics. Specifically, they misrepresented deposition testimony and improperly sought a subsequent deposition. Consequently, the defendant and its attorneys are jointly and severally liable for $15,610 in attorney's fees to the applicant's counsel and $900 in sanctions to the General Fund. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561bad-faith actionsfrivolous tacticssanctionsattorney's feesreconsiderationdeposition transcriptmisrepresentationsubsequent deposition
References
Case No. ADJ9714303
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

BRENT REYNOLDS vs. HOSTESS BRANDS, FORMERLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SELFINSURED SECURITY FUND VIA TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Hostess Brands' Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who found that while Hostess Brands' communication regarding a non-refundable deposit for an Agreed Medical Evaluator's deposition was not in bad faith, it constituted an ex parte communication in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(f). The ALJ also found the Applicant's counsel violated the same section by communicating with the evaluator without consulting the defense. As both parties violated the statute, the ALJ denied competing petitions for costs and sanctions, a decision affirmed by the Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorDeposition Fee AgreementNon-refundable DepositCross-examination FeesEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code section 4062.3Fee ScheduleMedical-legal Expenses
References
Case No. LAO 862841
Regular
Feb 28, 2008

BAHATI H. SALAS vs. LIVHOME, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and quashed the applicant's notice for a second deposition of Dr. Peterson. The Board found no good cause for a second deposition, as the applicant's representative was present at the first and failed to question Dr. Peterson on relevant matters despite having all necessary documentation. Allowing repeated depositions without changed circumstances would be neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contradicting the Board's mandate.

RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Due ProcessGood CauseCredibilitySubsequent DepositionLabor Code 4062.3Substantial Justice
References
Case No. ADJ7049850 ADJ7289794 ADJ7523255
Regular
May 11, 2015

FREDDIE B. GUZMAN vs. MARTENS CHEVROLET, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of an order denying his petition to enforce an award for out-of-pocket medical and travel expenses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, finding the applicant was denied due process. The Board rescinded the prior order and returned the matter for further proceedings and a new decision, noting the applicant's right to a hearing was violated. This decision allows for a proper hearing to address the disputed reimbursement claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to Enforce AwardSelf-Procured TreatmentOut-of-Pocket ExpensesDue ProcessWCJ OrderHearing DenialMedical Expenses ReimbursementTravel Expenses Reimbursement
References
Case No. ADJ3213121 (LBO 0361407)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

GLENDA M. BRUCE vs. COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that quashed the applicant's deposition. The applicant amended her claim to include hair loss and a fall after her last deposition. The Board found good cause for an additional deposition, as the defendant did not have notice of these new claims prior to the previous depositions. Therefore, the applicant is required to submit to a fifth deposition specifically addressing the hair loss and fall allegations.

Petition for RemovalQuashed DepositionCompensable ConsequencesAmended ApplicationIndustrial InjuryHair LossFallPrior NoticeFifth DepositionRescinded Order
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,248 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