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. ADJ13120564
Regular
Sep 15, 2022

Hector Barragan vs. Stanford Healthcare, Safety National Casualty, Tristar Insurance Group

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior order that deemed an EAMS document discoverable. The Board admitted the document into evidence as Exhibit XX but reversed the prior ruling on discoverability. The Board found the document not relevant to the applicant's alleged foot and ankle injuries, nor was there a waiver of privacy. Consequently, the defendant is prohibited from producing the document without WCAB authorization.

EAMSdiscoverablerelevantprivacy waiverQualified Medical EvaluatorPetition for Removalin camera reviewinadmissibilitycumulative injurydeposition transcript
References
Case No. ADJ292246 (SFO 0505632) ADJ2419734 (SFO 0504906) ADJ2647713 (SFO 0504908)
Regular
Jan 25, 2018

ANNA HONG vs. SBC INTERNET SERVICES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Anna Hong's petition for reconsideration because she was not aggrieved by a final or non-final order. The issues raised, including home health care and the discoverability of an investigator's report, were determined to be pre-trial matters not yet decided. The Board emphasized that a petition for reconsideration can only be taken from a final order that determines substantive rights or liabilities or a threshold issue. Since no decisions were issued at the hearing Ms. Hong referenced, her petition lacked a basis.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartyFinal OrderNon-Final OrderThreshold IssueExpedited HearingHome Health CareRequest for Authorization (RFA)Primary Treating Physician
References
Case No. ADJ7039298
Regular
Jul 08, 2010

GARY HILTABIDEL vs. WESTERN STAR TRANSPORT, DELOS INSURANCE administered by AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATOR (FRESNO), 02HR STAFF LEASING, PROVIDENCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought reconsideration of an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum for personnel and employment records from a co-defendant. The WCAB found the subpoena quashing order was not a final order, thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which is required for a petition for removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Quashing Subpoena Duces TecumCCP Section 1987.1Employee Leasing AgreementStaff LeasingDiscoverable DocumentsFinal OrderSubstantive Rights
References
Case No. ADJ3190249 (SFO 0500553)
Regular
Mar 24, 2010

Quintella Eutsey vs. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, dismissing the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The Board found the prior administrative law judge's order improperly limited discovery into the applicant's psychiatric injury claim. The Board rescinded the previous order, allowing further deposition to explore the applicant's full medical history relevant to her psyche claim, as this is discoverable when a psychological injury is at issue. Both parties were admonished to conduct themselves professionally during future discovery.

removalpetition for reconsiderationdiscovery disputepsyche injurydeposition testimonyright lower extremityindustrial injurypersonal lifefamily lifepast history
References
Case No. ADJ8396609
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

KELLY SNOW vs. HEALTH NET, INC., SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding prior orders that compelled the release of her psychotherapist's records and quashed subpoenas. The applicant argued these records were privileged psychotherapist-patient communications, and the therapist was not a physician or psychologist, thus their records were not discoverable for QME review. The Board found that while the psychotherapist-patient privilege exists, it is subject to waiver when mental condition is placed in issue by the patient, but this waiver is limited to relevant records. The case was returned to the trial level to determine if Ms. Bradley's records are relevant to the disclosed psychiatric injury or unrelated.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Quash Subpoena Duces TecumPsychotherapist-patient privilegeQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 3209.3Administrative Director Rule 35Evidence Code section 1010Holder of the privilegeEvidence Code section 1013Evidence Code section 1014
References
Case No. ADJ8642319
Regular
Apr 24, 2015

ISABEL RAMIREZ-RAMOS (spouse), ANGEL RAMIREZ (deceased) vs. OSTERIA COPPA, LLC, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE (FARMERS INSURANCE)

This case involves a deceased worker whose employer, Osteria Coppa, LLC, is challenging the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's award of death benefits. The employer argued the WCJ erred by disallowing cross-examination and excluding a medical report. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the original award because the employer failed to reject the claim within 90 days, thus triggering a presumption of compensability under Labor Code section 5402(b). Furthermore, the employer could not rebut this presumption with the excluded medical report, as the information it contained was discoverable within the 90-day period through reasonable diligence.

WCABIsabel Ramirez-RamosAngel RamirezOsteria CoppaLLCTruck Insurance ExchangeADJ8642319Opinion and Order Denying Petition for Reconsiderationindustrial injurydeath benefits
References
Case No. ADJ8424952
Regular
Sep 10, 2014

ALFONSO CRUZ vs. SIERRA CIRCUITS, INC.; THE HARTFORD

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal regarding deposition questions about medical history and insurance coverage. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition in part, allowing questions about medical insurance and personal doctors, as these are discoverable under CCP § 2017.010. However, the WCAB found questions about past medical treatment paid by others and prior hospitalizations to be overbroad, as they could infringe on the physician-patient privilege regarding unrelated conditions. The Board ordered the applicant to answer specific questions but requires defendants to reframe broader questions concerning medical history to avoid privileged information.

Petition for RemovalFifth AmendmentFirst Amendmentphysician-patient privilegeconfidential communicationindustrial injurymedical historydeposition questionsCode of Civil Procedure section 2017.010Evidence Code sections 990
References
Case No. ADJ8741424
Regular
May 19, 2016

CHARLES LAUDERDALE (Dec'd), KATHLEEN LAUDERDALE (Widow) vs. CRISP ENTERPRISES, INC. dba C2 REPROGRAPHICS, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a widow's claim for workers' compensation benefits after her husband's death. The initial ruling denied the claim, finding no injury arising out of employment. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the employer failed to deny the claim within the 90-day period required by Labor Code § 5402(b), thus creating a presumption of compensability. The Board determined the employer's evidence to rebut this presumption was insufficient because the witness testimony used was available and discoverable within the 90-day timeframe. Therefore, the Board found the decedent sustained an injury to his left foot arising out of and in the course of employment.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 5402(b)Presumed CompensableRebuttal of PresumptionReasonable DiligencePercipient WitnessSpecific InjuryLeft Foot
References
Showing 1-8 of 8 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