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. ADJ2635006 (STK 0206833)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

SAMUEL B. JOHNSON, III vs. CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying discovery requests was not a final order. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The Board affirmed the WCJ's discovery ruling as reasonable and returned the matter to the trial level. The applicant may seek reconsideration of a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJdiscovery requestsRequest for AdmissionsRequest for Authenticationfinal ordersubstantial prejudiceirreparable harm
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. ADJ4167440 (SBR 0304112)
Regular
Dec 29, 2008

ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ vs. AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order compelling discovery, deeming it interlocutory. However, they granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the discovery order, and returned the case to the trial level. The Board found the original discovery requests for chemicals, MSDS, employee names, and machinery to be vague, overbroad, and improperly sought the compilation of information rather than existing records.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling Requested InformationSubpoena Duces TecumMSDSIndustrial InjuryCumulative ExposureChemicalsSolvents
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. ADJ4048464 (SJO 0253163)
Regular
Feb 13, 2009

REHAN SHEIKH vs. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration as the underlying orders were interlocutory and not final. The Board also denied the applicant's request for removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. Additionally, the second petition was dismissed for being untimely filed. The WCJ correctly denied hourly attorney fees and most discovery requests, reserving jurisdiction on specific S&W and 132a issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalInterlocutory OrdersFinal OrdersDiscovery RequestsAttorney FeesLabor Code Section 132aSerious and Willful MisconductDeposition
References
Case No. ADJ9108418
Regular
Jul 24, 2014

OLIVIA MOLINA vs. KARL STORZ IMAGING INC., UNITED STATE FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal to allow for further discovery. The applicant claims multiple industrial injuries, which the employer denies. Two prior attempts to depose the applicant were unsuccessful due to circumstances beyond her control. The Board found the case's trial setting premature, especially with a QME panel recently requested, and redesignated the upcoming hearing as a priority conference to determine necessary discovery.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalContinued MatterClosed DiscoveryAdditional DiscoveryApplicant's DepositionInterpreterQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel of QMEsMedical Unit
References
Case No. ADJ7728639 ADJ7728660 ADJ7759971
Regular
Mar 01, 2012

CHAD HABERMAN vs. THE SUN VALLEY GROUP

This case involves the defendant's Petition for Removal after a WCJ denied their request to compel a continued deposition of the applicant in Oregon. The defendant argued prejudice due to potential travel costs for their attorney if the deposition remained in California. However, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy and reconsideration would be adequate to address future decisions on discovery. The parties were encouraged to resolve discovery disputes informally.

Petition for RemovalPetition to CompelPetition to Quashworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJapplicant's depositionproduction of documentsGrant's PassOregonEureka
References
Case No. ADJ2488411 (RIV 0017588)
Regular
Jun 30, 2011

ROBERT DOODY vs. MERLI CONCRETE PUMPING COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

Defendant Merli Concrete Pumping Company petitioned for removal, arguing insufficient discovery time regarding the applicant's petition for third-party credit and restitution. However, prior to the Appeals Board ruling on the petition, the parties jointly requested and the judge granted a continuance off the trial calendar. Consequently, the defendant's petition for removal became moot. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as moot.

Petition for RemovalThird-party CreditRestitutionDiscoveryOff CalendarMootWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPro Tempore JudgeContinuanceJoint Request
References
Case No. ADJ1699994 (LAO 0748438)
Regular
Aug 24, 2011

JOSE L. MACIAS vs. J. B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. (Chartis) against Jose L. Macias. The employer sought removal, arguing the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) violated their due process by setting the case for trial before completing discovery. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding removal to be an extraordinary remedy not warranted here as no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm was shown. The WCJ noted the employer's delay in pursuing discovery and failure to object to the applicant's readiness to proceed, deferring discovery rulings to the trial judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDue ProcessDiscoveryHome Health CareStipulations with Request for AwardPermanently Totally DisabledMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLabor Code §5310
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,606 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