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. ADJ15203597; ADJ15203084; ADJ15203598
Regular
Aug 04, 2025

FRANCISCO AGUIRRE vs. CALIFORNIA DRYWALL CO.; THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a Petition for Removal. The Board denied the petition, stating that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted. The petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor did they show that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the Board concluded that the petition should be denied.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportAppeals BoardCalifornia Drywall Co.The Hartford
References
Case No. ADJ10188134
Regular
Oct 03, 2018

MARLENY MAGALY LOPEZ VELASQUEZ vs. AZTECA JEANS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Marleny Lopez Velasquez's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy only granted upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the applicant failed to demonstrate. The Board found that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse final decision were issued. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequacy of RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ9589089
Regular
Sep 28, 2018

Ellen Deubner vs. Wellpoint, Zurich North America

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ellen Deubner's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that Deubner failed to demonstrate either, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is ultimately issued. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyextraordinary remedydenial of removalcase ADJ9589089
References
Case No. ADJ10321666
Regular
Jan 30, 2018

ASCENCION ROBLES vs. L&S FRAMING, INC., BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not met by the petitioner. The WCAB found that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision were ultimately issued. Therefore, the petition was denied based on the WCJ's analysis of the arguments.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedydenial of removalextraordinary remedyADJ10321666
References
Case No. ADJ11043173
Regular
Sep 13, 2018

Samuel McKee vs. Cal Fire Neu Unit, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Samuel McKee's Petition for Removal in case ADJ11043173. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which McKee failed to establish. The WCAB found that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision occurs later. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyCal FIREState Compensation Insurance FundADJ11043173
References
Case No. ADJ11675915
Regular
Sep 25, 2019

AMBER BETTINCOURT vs. BETHANY HOME SOCIETY OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate such harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The WCJ's decision not to bifurcate the statute of limitations issue was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyjudicial discretionbifurcationstatute of limitations
References
Case No. ADJ12795046
Regular
Mar 04, 2025

VICENTE SIXTO vs. LANGE TWINS, INC.; ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal filed by the petitioner. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted, requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. Based on the Workers' Compensation Judge's analysis, the Board was not persuaded that these criteria were met, thus upholding the denial.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyextraordinary remedyADJ12795046Lange Twins
References
Case No. ADJ7659437
Regular
Oct 31, 2016

ALFREDO PEREZ vs. MAINSTAY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, CALIFORNIA SELF-INSURERS' SECURITY FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Alfredo Perez's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that requires a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if not granted. The Board found that Perez failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadequate remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8
References
Case No. ADJ10586958
Regular

INOCENTA PALENCIA vs. NESTLE PREPARED FOODS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns Inocenta Palencia's workers' compensation claim against Nestle. Palencia filed a Petition for Removal, an extraordinary remedy. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding Palencia failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board also determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy should an adverse decision be made later.

Petition for RemovalDeniedAppeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyextraordinary remedyCortez
References
Case No. ADJ10823453
Regular
Feb 15, 2018

MATTHEW GLASER vs. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision regarding joinder. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found no grounds to grant either extraordinary measure.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONPETITION FOR REMOVALFINAL ORDERSUBSTANTIVE RIGHT OR LIABILITYTHRESHOLD ISSUEINTERLOCUTORY DECISIONSINTERMEDIATE PROCEDURAL ISSUEEXTRAORDINARY REMEDYSUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,282 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