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. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592) ADJ1224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Feb 17, 2009

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA. COM and SYSMASTER CORPORATION, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order being challenged was procedural and not a final appealable order. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The applicant's arguments regarding rescinded orders, discovery abuse, and due process were unaddressed as the procedural nature of the order precluded review. The Board cautioned the applicant against filing frivolous petitions, warning of potential sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalInterlocutory OrderProcedural OrderFinal OrderLabor Code section 5900Substantive RightsDiscovery IssuesAbuse of Discovery
References
Case No. ADJ7232076
En Banc
Sep 26, 2011

Tsegay Messele vs. Pitco Foods, Inc.; California Insurance Company

The Appeals Board holds that the 10-day period for agreeing on an AME under Labor Code § 4062.2(b) is extended by five days when the initial proposal is served by mail, and clarifies the method for calculating this time period, finding both parties' panel requests premature.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTsegay MesselePitco FoodsInc.California Insurance CompanyADJ7232076Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalEn Banc
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. ADJ11350389
Regular
Sep 23, 2025

JOSE PEREZ LEDESMA, Marjorie Martinez Interpreting vs. RUIZ & SON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that ruled a notice to produce was an invalid discovery mechanism. The WCAB found that California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10642 expressly permits the use of notices to produce in workers' compensation proceedings, similar to Civil Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). Therefore, the defendant was ordered to produce the relevant interpreter payment and Explanation of Review documents requested by the cost petitioner. This decision emphasizes the system's intent for a simple and nontechnical path to relief, allowing authorized discovery methods.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationNotice to ProduceSubpoenaWCJRemovalLabor CodeCode of Civil ProcedureRule 10642Explanation of Review
References
Case No. ADJ9625941
Regular
Oct 15, 2015

DANIEL BORGSTROM vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHANNEL ISLANDS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration, as they were taken from non-final interlocutory orders concerning a discovery dispute over deposing the Chief of Police. The applicant's petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the WCJ rescinded the order denying the deposition, thereby allowing it. Finally, the defendant's petition for removal was denied, as they failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and liberal discovery for the fair resolution of cases was favored.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder RescindingDepositionChief of PoliceDiscovery DisputeNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
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
Case No. ADJ4639631 (MON 0327478)
Regular
Jan 28, 2013

MARY JONES vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves Mary Jones's petition for reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB had granted a removal petition, rescinded an order continuing the case to trial, and returned it for further proceedings. Jones argued discovery should remain closed and the case proceed to trial promptly. The WCAB dismissed her petition, stating the prior decision was procedural, not a final order appealable under Labor Code section 5900(a). The Court of Appeal also dismissed Jones's subsequent petition, finding no final WCAB order existed.

Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After RemovalFinal OrderProcedural OrderLabor Code Section 5900(a)Aggrieved PartyCourt of AppealPetition for Writ of ReviewSecond Appellate DistrictDivision Four
References
Case No. ADJ1415058 (FRE 0192009) MF ADJ4686427 (FRE 0193449)
Regular
Dec 18, 2017

ANGEL VALENZUELA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The defendant employer sought removal to challenge an order compelling the deposition of their claims adjuster and production of documents. The defendant argued that as a legally uninsured employer, discovery from their adjuster (SCIF/SCS) required subpoenas, not just notice. The Appeals Board denied removal, holding that workers' compensation proceedings are not bound by civil discovery rules and the adjuster, as the employer's agent, is subject to discovery via notice. The Board found no irreparable prejudice and affirmed the WCJ's order compelling discovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeMotion to Compel DepositionProduction of DocumentsState Compensation Insurance FundLegally Uninsured EmployerSubpoenaService of NoticeLabor Code
References
Case No. ADJ4245398 (GOL 0101151)
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

HEIDI KIRKWOOD vs. VERIZON CALIFORNIA, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as the WCJ's order was procedural and not a final determination. The Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order to reopen discovery, and returned the case for a decision based on the existing record. This action was taken because the discovery closure date had passed, no party requested further development of the record, and reopening would cause undue delay. The Board admonished the defendant for improperly titling their petition as one for reconsideration.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ OrderVacated SubmissionPsychiatric PQMEReevaluationDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,097 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