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. ADJ814506 (LAO 0730622)
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

MANUEL VALDOVINOS vs. ALTRA FILTERS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CAMBRIDGE for RELIANCE INSURANCE GROUP

The applicant and defendant jointly petitioned for removal and automatic reassignment of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to alleged delays and prejudice, arguing the WCJ's actions violated their right to an expeditious adjudication. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding it untimely and lacking grounds for disqualification. The Board noted that removal is only granted for significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated here. However, the Board expressed concern over the alleged delays and urged the parties and WCJ to proceed expeditiously.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAutomatic ReassignmentJudge DisqualificationUntimely PetitionIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceOrder Vacating Order of SubmissionLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641
References
9
Case No. LAO 862841
Regular
Feb 28, 2008

BAHATI H. SALAS vs. LIVHOME, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and quashed the applicant's notice for a second deposition of Dr. Peterson. The Board found no good cause for a second deposition, as the applicant's representative was present at the first and failed to question Dr. Peterson on relevant matters despite having all necessary documentation. Allowing repeated depositions without changed circumstances would be neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contradicting the Board's mandate.

RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Due ProcessGood CauseCredibilitySubsequent DepositionLabor Code 4062.3Substantial Justice
References
0
Case No. ANA 0400591
Regular
May 05, 2008

ALEXANDER SPITZ vs. PEPSI BOTTLING COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded a prior order from the administrative law judge, and quashed the applicant's subpoena duces tecum. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested documents and that the protracted proceedings surrounding the subpoena were neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contrary to public policy. The applicant may issue a new, narrowly drawn subpoena if future disputes necessitate document production.

RemovalPetition for RemovalQuash Subpoena Duces TecumCode of Civil Procedure Section 1985(b)Good CauseMaterialityPublic PolicySubstantial JusticeExpeditiouslyInexpensively
References
0
Case No. OAK 0325086
Regular
Sep 11, 2007

KENNETH GMEINER vs. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the employer's petition for reconsideration as premature, but granted removal to address the judge's improper deferral of a permanent disability decision. The judge had vacated submission, citing uncertainty about the validity of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) based on a pending case. The Board ruled that deferring a decision on permanent disability due to an unresolved legal issue concerning the PDRS's validity prejudiced the parties and violated the mandate for expeditious adjudication.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and Order Vacating SubmissionPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleSB 899Boughner v. CompUSAInc.Costa v. HardyAdministrative Director
References
2
Case No. ADJ7306346
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

MIGUEL KAPLOWITZ vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) judge's order. The WCAB denied the petition, finding the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The order allowed the applicant to seek medical treatment for an additional body part before trial. While discovery typically closes at a mandatory settlement conference, the WCAB found the judge's decision more expeditious. The defendant can still argue discovery limitations at the upcoming settlement conference.

Petition for RemovalOrder Denying PetitionMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessMedical TreatmentAdditional Body PartGastrointestinal InjuryDiscovery ClosureAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Case No. ADJ3589881 (SBR0186633) ADJ2907298 (SBR0185776)
Regular
Mar 14, 2017

THEODORE MOULAS vs. SDA TRANSPORTATION, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

The defendant sought removal, challenging the WCJ's order to reopen discovery after trial had begun. The Appeals Board initially dismissed the removal petition as moot, believing the discovery dispute was resolved. However, the defendant asserted the dispute remained unresolved, prompting the Board to grant a new petition for removal. The Board rescinded its prior dismissal, denied the original removal petition without prejudice, and ordered the WCJ to hold an expeditious status conference to clarify the case's status and facilitate resolution.

Petition for RemovalDiscovery DisputeMandatory Settlement ConferenceReopening DiscoveryGood CauseIrreparable HarmMoot PetitionRescind OrderStatus ConferenceExpiditious Resolution
References
2
Case No. ADJ4238414
Regular
Jul 22, 2011

CINDY HEWITT vs. THE KROGER CO. dba RALPHS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant, The Kroger Co. dba Ralphs, seeking to rescind an order continuing the applicant's case to trial. The defendant argued that inconsistencies in the agreed medical evaluator's reports required further discovery, such as interrogatories or a second deposition, before proceeding. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the adequacy of the medical record cannot be determined until the matter is submitted for trial. The Board emphasized that it is more expeditious to proceed to trial and allow the WCJ to assess the record's completeness then.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorInconsistenciesDiscoveryOff CalendarWCJReport and RecommendationMcDuffieMedical Record AugmentationCase Development
References
1
Case No. OAK 328137
Regular
Aug 20, 2007

AARON DE MATTEO vs. JOINERY STRUCTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the liability of Joinery Structures and State Compensation Insurance Fund for the applicant's vocational expert costs. The Board affirmed that vocational expert fees are recoverable expenses under Labor Code Section 5811, as such testimony is relevant to determining permanent disability and aligns with the mandate for expeditious and inexpensive resolution. The denial also addressed the defendants' arguments regarding the timing of the expert's report and its compliance with specific Labor Code sections, finding them unpersuasive.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDReconsiderationApplicantDefendantJOINERY STRUCTURESSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDWCJvocational expertloss of future earning capacity1997 Guidelines
References
6
Case No. ADJ7395101
Regular
Jan 13, 2016

Phillips Wylly Jr. vs. Omni Hotel, Arch Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded the original findings regarding the applicant's right thumb injury, as it was based on an unclear stipulation and the employer's insurer's identity was irrelevant. However, the Board affirmed the denial of the applicant's request to strike the medical report of Dr. Ronald Carlish. This denial was due to the applicant's waiver of objection by not unqualifiedly objecting to the untimely report before reviewing its contents. The Board found that allowing such an objection after seeing an unfavorable opinion would promote doctor shopping and hinder expeditious litigation.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulation of CounselIndustrial InjuryPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorMedical ReportReplacement PanelWaiverInvited ErrorUntimely ServiceDoctor Shopping
References
3
Case No. ADJ3782484 (OAK 343607)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

BRIAN GARRETT vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for removal and rescinded the trial judge's order setting a Labor Code Section 132a discrimination claim for trial. The WCAB found that the applicant's Section 132a petition was too vague to determine the alleged violations. Furthermore, the WCAB determined that the defendant had not shown sufficient prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant bifurcating the trial or consolidating it with the underlying industrial injury claim. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to ensure an expeditious conclusion.

Labor Code 132aDiscriminationRemoval PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorQMEIndustrial InjuryCase-in-chiefMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 29 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