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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1998

People v. Tullo

In this case, the court addresses an application for an ex parte order of protection against a defendant charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree, stemming from a single threatening telephone call. The Assistant District Attorney sought the order based on new facts not included in the original accusatory instrument. Judge Joel B. Gewanter denied the application, interpreting CPL 530.13 (2) to limit ex parte orders of protection solely to factual allegations present within the filed accusatory instrument. The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. It suggested that for new charges, a new complaint and arrest would be the appropriate procedure for issuing such an order.

Aggravated HarassmentSecond DegreeEx Parte Order of ProtectionCriminal Procedure LawCPL 530.13MisdemeanorFirst ImpressionTelephone CallThreatening StatementDue Process
References
0
Case No. ADJ8531754
Regular
Mar 11, 2019

ARTURO TRUJILLO vs. TIC THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY, THE HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's findings and orders, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This decision stemmed from a dispute over whether an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) interview with the applicant's wife and the applicant's provision of medical records at the AME's deposition constituted impermissible ex parte communication. The WCAB found that the interview with the wife was permissible as a collateral source to supplement the applicant's potentially impaired memory due to a brain injury, and that the provision of records at the deposition was not ex parte as the defendant was present. However, the WCAB remanded the case for the WCJ to determine if the applicant improperly provided information to the AME, as parties must agree on what information is provided to an AME.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorEx Parte CommunicationPetition for RemovalMedical-Legal ReportingCollateral InterviewApplicant's WifeDepositionsMedical RecordsSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code Section 4062.3
References
20
Case No. ADJ7452503
Regular
Sep 26, 2011

PATRICIA MAYORGA vs. MOUNT DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, TRISTAR

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, which sought to overturn an order quashing the deposition of a treating physician. The defendant argued the communication wasn't an ex parte communication and was necessary for their defense and fraud investigation. However, the Board found the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. While ex parte communications with QMEs/AMEs are prohibited, they are not with treating physicians, and the communication was not barred by statute or case law.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Quash DepositionTreating PhysicianEx Parte CommunicationAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
4
Case No. ADJ7184508
Regular
Nov 15, 2011

LEWIS DALE CUNNINGHAM vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

This case involves a defendant's petitions to disqualify the judge or remove him from the case due to alleged ex parte communications with the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied both petitions. The WCAB found the defendant failed to provide grounds for judicial disqualification and that the alleged ex parte communications with the QME were insignificant and did not cause substantial prejudice. Furthermore, the defendant failed to timely petition for removal of an earlier order allowing the QME's deposition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for DisqualificationPetition for RemovalJudge Robert PuseyPermissibly Self-InsuredQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEDr. Stanley J. MajcherEx Parte CommunicationsWCJ
References
2
Case No. ADJ16326594
Regular
Oct 31, 2025

Peter Pham vs. Southern California Edison

Defendant sought removal of a WCJ's December 12, 2023 Findings of Fact and Order (F&O), which denied their motion for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The defendant argued that the applicant's email to the QME constituted impermissible ex parte contact. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinding the F&O, and substituting new Findings of Fact that the email was indeed impermissible ex parte contact, thereby ordering a replacement QME panel. Additionally, while earlier QME reports and deposition testimony by Dr. Weiss remain in evidence, her report dated July 22, 2023, was stricken to preserve the appearance of impartiality in the medical evaluation process.

Ex parte contactQualified Medical EvaluatorRemoval petitionFindings of Fact and OrderLabor Code Section 4062.3Appearance of impartialityMedical evaluation processReplacement QME panelPsychiatric injuryStipulated facts
References
14
Case No. ADJ6550136
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

Vanessa Ford vs. County of San Bernardino

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's disqualification of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) due to ex parte communication during his deposition. The defendant's arguments that the deposition was permissible and that questions exceeded the medical issues were rejected. However, the Board clarified that the AME's prior reports remain admissible and the defendant may seek deposition costs.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)DisqualifiedEx Parte CommunicationDepositionQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Administrative DirectorPanel of NeurologistsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
0
Case No. ADJ9837582, ADJ9835957
Regular
Jul 09, 2015

SANTOS GUZMAN vs. MAIN IMPERIAL, LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Applicant's petition for removal of a WCJ's Order to Compel attendance at a deposition. The Board denied removal, finding Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Order to Compel was properly obtained via a walk-through procedure, not an improper ex parte communication. Furthermore, Applicant provided no valid reason for objecting to the continued deposition, especially after prior agreement and the alleged factual inaccuracy of his objection regarding deposition transcripts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder to Compel AttendanceDepositionAdministrative Law JudgeWCJCumulative Trauma InjurySpecific InjuryDue ProcessEx Parte
References
2
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Case No. ADJ9180559
Regular
Sep 18, 2015

JACKIE SUEHIRO (Dec'd), ALVIN SUEHIRO (Husband) vs. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, permissibly self-insured, adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding a prior Minute Order. The WCJ had found ex-parte communication by the defendant and ordered a new QME panel without a trial or sworn testimony. The Board found this violated the defendant's due process rights, as no evidence was presented to support the ex-parte communication finding. The case is returned to the trial level for a hearing on all issues, including alleged ex-parte communication, with parties afforded the chance to present evidence and witnesses.

Petition for RemovalMinute OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorEx-parte CommunicationDue ProcessWCJReplacement QME PanelLabor Code Section 5313Admitted EvidenceProof of Service
References
1
Case No. ADJ11584415
Regular
Sep 30, 2019

GUY SYLVA vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

This case involves an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that denied temporary disability benefits and a motion to strike a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) reports. The applicant alleged ex parte communication between the defendant and the QME, violating Labor Code section 4062.3. The WCAB granted reconsideration, finding that the issue of ex parte communication was not adequately addressed due to conflicting dates and unadmitted evidence. The matter is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if ex parte communication occurred and to address the temporary disability issue.

WCABAOE/COEQMEex parte communicationLabor Code section 4062.3Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderremovaltemporary disabilityprimary treating physician
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 2,344 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