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. ADJ394468 (OAK 0325496)
Regular
Apr 26, 2018

Maria Padilla vs. IN-HOME SUPPORT SERVICES, YORK, RISK SERVICES GROUP

Applicant Maria Padilla petitioned for removal after a WCJ's discovery order allegedly closed discovery, denying her due process. The WCJ recommended granting removal, clarifying that discovery was intended to be stayed, not closed. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the order closing discovery, and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings. This decision ensures further discovery can be properly considered based on the WCJ's clarified intent.

Petition for RemovalDiscovery OrderWCJDue ProcessStay DiscoveryReport and RecommendationRescind OrderDecision After RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ8543293
Regular
Jul 07, 2015

KAREN GENOVESE vs. SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The defendant school district sought to remove a WCAB order that closed discovery. They argued the order was improper due to insufficient medical evidence and denial of due process. However, discovery was subsequently re-opened by the WCJ on May 6, 2015, after the Petition for Removal was filed. Therefore, the Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as moot because the issue of closing discovery had already been resolved.

Petition for RemovalDiscoveryWCJLabor Code 4663Labor Code 4061(i)Qualified Medical ExaminerSubstantial Medical EvidenceDue ProcessMootMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Javier H. v. Garcia-Botello

This case concerns a motion by the United States to intervene in a civil action brought by farm-worker plaintiffs against grower and contractor defendants. The purpose of the intervention was to stay discovery in the civil case until a related criminal trial, United States v. Maria Garcia et al., concludes. The civil and criminal cases share nearly identical facts, charges, and some defendants, raising concerns about criminal defendants using civil discovery to circumvent criminal discovery limitations and potential Fifth Amendment violations. The Court denies the United States' motion to intervene, finding the government has no direct interest in the civil litigation. However, the Court, exercising its inherent power, orders a stay of all discovery in the civil matter until the close of evidence in the related criminal case, citing interests of justice, judicial efficiency, and public interest in law enforcement.

Discovery StayIntervention MotionParallel ProceedingsCriminal-Civil OverlapFifth Amendment PrivilegeJudicial EfficiencyFarm Workers RightsMigrant Workers ProtectionFair Labor Standards ActAgricultural Workers Protection Act
References
18
Case No. ADJ8595467
Regular
Sep 29, 2015

JESSICA RIVERA vs. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant, Good Samaritan Hospital and Ace American Insurance Company, seeking to rescind an order closing discovery. The defendants argued that the order closing discovery would cause them substantial prejudice and irreparable harm by preventing them from obtaining a rebuttal vocational expert evaluation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ's report, but noted the defendant could request to proceed with the evaluation at trial. However, one Commissioner dissented, arguing the defendant's actions were diligent and the due process right to discovery was violated.

Petition for RemovalOrder Closing DiscoveryVocational ExpertRebuttal EvaluationDue ProcessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMandatory Settlement ConferenceAgreed Medical EvaluatorsGainfully Employed
References
0
Case No. ADJ7680121
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

CARLOS ANDRADE vs. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Wells Fargo's petition for reconsideration of an order closing discovery and setting the case for trial. The WCAB found the order was procedural, not a final determination of substantive rights, and therefore not subject to reconsideration. The WCAB also denied Wells Fargo's petition for removal, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. Given the trial date has passed, the WCAB ordered the WCJ to reschedule trial with discovery remaining closed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalClosing DiscoveryProcedural OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightsDeclaration of ReadinessMandatory Settlement ConferenceGood Faith Efforts
References
4
Case No. ADJ7680003
Regular
Aug 20, 2018

VALERIE CROOK vs. SANTA YNEZ VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN PRESCHOOL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal challenging discovery closure orders issued by a workers' compensation judge (WCJ). The defendant argued that closing discovery prematurely would cause significant prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the removal, finding the WCJ erred in believing a peremptory challenge to their role prevented them from issuing discovery orders. The WCAB amended the original orders to allow the originally permitted discovery while otherwise affirming the WCJ's decisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPre-Trial Conference StatementDiscoveryVocational EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorSupplemental ReportPre-emptory ChallengeMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJ Authority
References
4
Case No. ADJ2834861 (GRO 00349120) ADJ3453107 (GRO 0031731) ADJ405168 (GRO 0034913)
Regular
Nov 14, 2019

TOM JANISE vs. DSH ATASCADERO, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding an order that closed discovery and set a trial date. This was because a court-ordered neurology panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) was not selected until after discovery was closed, despite delays from the Medical Unit. The Board agreed that applicant should not be prejudiced by this delay and allowed for the QME evaluation to proceed. Consequently, the trial was converted to a status conference.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorDWC Medical Unitneurologydiscovery closureproof of serviceStatus Conferencerescinded order
References
0
Case No. ADJ7959067
Regular
Jul 17, 2012

MOJGAN RAZAVY vs. SPHERION CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the order allowing further discovery. The Board found that discovery should have closed at the mandatory settlement conference on March 7, 2012, as per statute. The judge erred in allowing further discovery without a threshold determination of deficient medical opinions, especially since the case had not yet proceeded to trial or submission. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, with discovery closed as of the original settlement conference date.

Petition for RemovalOrder Re: DiscoveryMandatory Settlement ConferencePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorFurther Medical TreatmentPermanent DisabilityDiscovery ClosureThreshold MatterMedical Opinion DeficiencyLabor Code Section 5502(e)(3)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Craig v. New York Telephone Co.

This appeal stems from a wrongful death action where the plaintiff's decedent died of a heart attack after working at a fire scene. The plaintiff sought discovery from the defendant, Telephone Company, regarding the fire and workplace conditions. The defendant appealed Justice Wright's order to comply with discovery demands. The appellate court modified the order, striking plaintiff's demand number two as overly broad and burdensome, while affirming demands three and four as sufficiently specific, thus partially affirming and partially modifying the original order.

DiscoveryInspectionWrongful DeathWorkplace SafetyFire IncidentAppellate ReviewProtective OrderBurdensome DemandsSpecificity in DiscoveryCivil Procedure
References
5
Case No. ADJ7269617
Regular
Nov 28, 2011

LARRY MCATEE vs. WOLSELEY MANAGEMENT, INC dba FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's claims for specific and cumulative trauma industrial injuries to his back and nervous system. The defendant petitioned for removal and reconsideration after the administrative law judge (WCJ) closed discovery. Parties subsequently agreed to conduct additional discovery, which the WCJ acknowledged and recommended rescinding the discovery closure order. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the discovery closure order, and dismissed the petition for reconsideration as moot.

RemovalReconsiderationClosing DiscoveryRescinded OrderMandatory Settlement ConferencePetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 24,511 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