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. AHM 98231
Regular
Sep 24, 2007

MYLINH WHITMAN vs. CINGULAR WIRELESS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Appeals Board is reconsidering whether the defendant, Cingular Wireless, is entitled to a credit for salary continuation benefits paid to the applicant. The key issue is whether these benefits were of the "same general character" as workers' compensation, which would permit integration and a credit. The case is returned to the trial level for further evidence development on this specific point, rescinding the prior award of a credit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCreditSalary continuation planWage loss planMetropolitan Life Short Term Disability PolicyHealth and Welfare Benefits PlanSummary plan descriptionEmployer policyTaxable benefitsPermanent disability indemnity
References
Case No. ADJ8517731
Regular
Jul 23, 2013

BLANCA CALDERON vs. CPS SECURITY SOLUTIONS

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's denial of a medical records release form because the defendant conceded they had not yet been prejudiced and had received records via subpoena. The Board also found the defendant's discovery requests regarding a prior sexual harassment lawsuit too vague to compel and noted that specific facts demonstrating good cause under Labor Code section 3208.4 would be required for discovery related to sexual conduct. The case was remanded for a priority conference, where the defendant must present a comprehensive discovery plan, and the WCJ will issue appropriate discovery orders.

Petition for RemovalRelease of Medical RecordsLabor Code section 3208.4Sexual Harassment LitigationDiscoveryMandatory Settlement ConferencePriority ConferenceWCJAppeals BoardIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ7848295
Regular
Apr 10, 2012

RAMONA BURTON vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and dismissed reconsideration of a WCJ's order. The WCJ had improperly taken the case off calendar and allowed discovery to reopen for a new psychiatric injury claim, despite the applicant filing a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed indicating trial readiness. This prejudiced the defendant by allowing the applicant to develop evidence for an unclaimed injury after discovery closure. The Board ordered discovery closed as of the original Mandatory Settlement Conference date and returned the case to trial level for a new MSC to prepare for trial.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedInjury to PsychePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent and Stationary StatusReopened DiscoveryClosure of DiscoveryInterlocutory Orders
References
Case No. ADJ17808664
Regular
Oct 22, 2025

Edith Gomez vs. Garfield Beach CVS, LLC; Indemnity Insurance Company of North America

The defendant petitioned for removal from a WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued on June 11, 2025, which found medical opinions unsubstantial and ordered a discovery plan. The defendant argued that the discovery plan violated Labor Code section 5502(e)(3) and that existing medical reporting was substantial evidence. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the original F&O, and substituted a new F&O, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The new F&O stated that opinions from Renee Kohanim, D.C., and Dabney Blankenship, Ph.D., were not substantial medical evidence, but Dr. David Edelman's studies were.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial Medical EvidenceLabor Code Section 5502(e)(3)Discovery PlanQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical ExaminerFindings of Fact and OrderRescindSubstitute
References
Case No. ADJ8140937
Regular
Nov 19, 2015

MICHELE CHAPMAN vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN

This case involves Kaiser Foundation Health Plan's Petition for Removal challenging an order closing discovery and setting a trial date. Kaiser argued the order prejudiced its ability to conduct discovery after being joined late in the proceedings. However, the Board discovered the parties had already entered into a Stipulated Award on the scheduled trial date, resolving the dispute. Consequently, the Petition for Removal became moot and was dismissed. The Board also noted the defendant's failure to inform them of the resolution, which led to an unnecessary review.

Petition for RemovalWCJ OrderDiscovery ClosureTrial SettingPermissibly Self-InsuredSedgwick Claims ManagementStipulations with Request for AwardAward Pursuant to StipulationsMoot PetitionUnnecessary Review
References
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
Case No. ADJ9060378
Regular
Apr 21, 2014

MELISSA OVERTON vs. THE PAPER BAG PRINCESS, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over applicant Melissa Overton's deposition, specifically regarding the presence of an employer representative and videotaping. A WCJ vacated a prior submission order to compel a psychiatric evaluation to assess the applicant's fitness for deposition under those conditions. The defendant sought removal, arguing the WCJ erred in vacating submission and ordering further discovery. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order and submission order, and returned the case for reassignment to a new WCJ to resolve the discovery dispute.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionFurther DiscoveryProtective OrdersDeposition LocationEmployer RepresentativePsychiatric EvaluationIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaWCJ Reassignment
References
Case No. ADJ8675755
Regular
Dec 30, 2014

MARIA MATA vs. PARK VIEW GARDENS, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, YORK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendants, Park View Gardens and Safety National Casualty Corporation. The defendants sought removal of an interlocutory order allowing applicant Maria Mata to conduct further discovery related to additional claimed body parts. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Administrative Law Judge's report recommended denial, noting the defendants' prior awareness of the additional body parts and their lack of timely objection to discovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalInterlocutory OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationFinal OrderDeclaration of ReadinessOff CalendarFurther Discovery
References
Case No. ADJ14382634
Regular
Nov 04, 2025

ENRIQUE SANCHEZ vs. SAFEWAY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Applicant Enrique Sanchez filed a petition for removal from a WCJ's order of continuance, arguing that discovery was incomplete. The defendant, Safeway, responded, and the WCJ recommended dismissing the petition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the arguments and determined that removal is an extraordinary remedy. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant, concluding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if necessary. Consequently, the Board denied the petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalWCABOrder of ContinuanceDiscoveryWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmitted EvidenceSubstantial Evidence
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,122 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