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. ADJ11136283
Regular
Apr 15, 2019

JOSE ALFREDO SOLORZA vs. STERLING MACHINERY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order striking the QME panel. The Board found the WCJ's order lacked an evidentiary basis, as no evidence was admitted into the record to support the premature finding. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to establish a proper evidentiary record. The merits of the QME panel dispute were not decided at this stage.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelpremature panel requestPetition to StrikeWCJ Orderevidentiary recordadmitted evidencesubstantial evidenceLabor Code section 4060
References
5
Case No. ADJ11802539
Regular
Dec 03, 2019

LA TONYA RIDER vs. PRIDE INDUSTRIES, NORTH RIVER INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order denying a replacement QME panel. Defendant sought a replacement due to the current QME's unavailability for deposition. The Board found the original order lacked an evidentiary basis, necessitating a return to the trial level. Further proceedings will establish an evidentiary record to adjudicate the QME replacement issue, considering relevant Administrative Director Rules.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator paneldeposition unavailabilityevidentiary recordsubstantial evidenceAdministrative Director Rule 31.5(a)Administrative Director Rule 35.5(f)trial levelrescinded orderReturn to trial
References
4
Case No. ADJ11563618, ADJ11563620, ADJ11563654
Regular
May 02, 2019

MARIA LUQUE VIDALES vs. FOSTER FARMS, FOSTER FARMS LIVINGSTON

The WCAB granted applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order for a replacement QME panel. The original order was issued without an admitted evidentiary record, violating the requirement for decisions to be based on substantial evidence. The case is returned to the trial level to establish a proper record and adjudicate the disputed QME issue. This decision ensures due process by requiring an evidentiary basis before significant procedural orders are made.

Petition for RemovalReplacement QME PanelUntimely Supplemental ReportDiscovery DelayIrreparable HarmSubstantial EvidenceEvidentiary RecordRescind OrderReturn to Trial LevelFoster Farms
References
6
Case No. ADJ11230683, ADJ11233335
Regular
Sep 04, 2019

WANDA YONGE vs. LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded a prior order, and returned the case to the trial level. The WCJ had ordered a replacement QME panel because the current QME could not schedule a deposition within 120 days, a reason not explicitly listed in the regulations for a replacement panel. The Board found the WCJ's order was issued without an evidentiary record, preventing proper review. Further proceedings are required to establish an evidentiary basis for any decision regarding a replacement QME.

Petition for RemovalReplacement QME panelWCJ Order8CCR 35.5120-day deposition ruleevidentiary recordsubstantial evidenceAdministrative Director Rule 31.5(a)Mandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Alliance Network, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.

In this Memorandum Decision and Order, the District Court addressed post-trial motions filed by the Defendants after a jury verdict favored the Plaintiffs on claims of unpaid fees, breach of confidentiality, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 or, alternatively, a new trial under Rule 59. The Court denied the Rule 50 motion, citing procedural bars and sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's findings. Furthermore, the Rule 59 motion for a new trial was denied, as the Court found no errors in the weight of the evidence, curative instructions, discovery, or evidentiary rulings, and deemed the verdict not excessive. Consequently, the jury's verdict was affirmed.

Judgment as a matter of lawNew trial motionBreach of confidentialityMisappropriation of trade secretsUnpaid feesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 50Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59Evidentiary rulingsDiscovery violationsJury verdict
References
28
Case No. ADJ3123745 (VNO 0551286) ADJ3791599 (VNO 0548958)
Regular
Apr 29, 2015

Steven Kroesen (Deceased), Jennifer Kroesen (Widow) vs. CITY OF TORRANCE, CITY OF LONG BEACH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a denial of death benefits for Steven Kroesen due to a dispute over the timeliness of the applicant's petition. The applicant claims their petition was timely delivered on November 12, 2014, via FedEx, but the WCAB's records show a filing date of November 13, 2014. The WCAB has returned the case to the administrative law judge for an evidentiary hearing to determine the exact filing date and address jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claim. This hearing will resolve whether the petition was filed within the statutorily allowed timeframe, considering Veterans Day and potential delays.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionEvidentiary HearingJoint Findings and OrderReport of Workers' Compensation JudgeSupplemental PetitionFedEx deliveryR. SolisVeteran's Day
References
6
Case No. ADJ10204171
Regular
Oct 13, 2016

BEATRIZ AGUILAR vs. HEALTHCARE SERVICES GROUP AND NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD adjusted by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, but rather from an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decision. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The WCJ's report, incorporated by reference, provided the basis for both decisions. Therefore, the applicant's requests were rejected.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ8772515
Regular
Jun 26, 2018

FRANCISCO MARIN vs. MERCHANTS OF TENNIS, INC.

The WCAB granted reconsideration of an order dismissing a lien claimant's lien. The lien was dismissed due to the claimant's failure to object to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss. However, the record was unclear regarding what transpired at a subsequent lien trial where the claimant's representative appeared and all liens were purportedly resolved. The Board found the dismissal order lacked proper evidentiary basis and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienCode of Civil Procedure section 473Compromise and ReleaseLien Conference Disposition FormMinutes of HearingLabor Code section 5313Rule 10750(a)
References
3
Case No. ADJ3995603 (MON 0246737), ADJ534884 (MON 0245064), ADJ4048703 (MON 0246736)
Regular
Jun 02, 2018

HERMINEGILDA CHAVEZ vs. CHIEF AUTO PARTS, AUTOZONE, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, LIBERTY MUTUAL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, INTERCARE INSURANCE FOR HIH INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SEDGWICK CMS, FREMONT INDEMNITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Herminegilda Chavez's petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order. The WCAB explained that intermediate procedural or evidentiary decisions are not considered final. Additionally, the WCAB denied Chavez's petition for removal, as she failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be inadequate. Therefore, the WCAB found no basis to grant extraordinary relief through removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueIntermediate Procedural OrderEvidentiary DecisionExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
9
Case No. LAO 0803576
Regular
Jun 02, 2008

CESAR GARCIA LOPEZ vs. ROYAL PRINTEX INC., KYUN HYUN RYU, EUL KYEONG KIM, UEBTF

This case involves lien claimants challenging a WCJ's decision disallowing their claims for medical treatment provided to the applicant for a low back injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the WCJ's decision lacked clarity regarding which specific lien claims were denied and the precise basis for those denials. The matter is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify the lien claimants, the evidentiary record, and the reasons for any future decision.

WCABReconsiderationLien ClaimantsSupplemental Findings and OrderReasonable and Necessary TreatmentIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityReport and RecommendationEvidentiary RecordLabor Code § 5313
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,603 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