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. ADJ4227582
Regular
Nov 18, 2011

BOBBY CLEMENTS vs. GEORGE REED, INC., TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves an applicant seeking removal of a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) after an order compelling disclosure of specific records. The applicant claimed bias, Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and privacy rights for corporate records. The Appeals Board denied the petition, clarifying that removal requires more than disagreement with a ruling and that the Fifth Amendment privilege is waived when a party initiates litigation and the requested information is relevant to their claim. The Board found no evidence of bias and ruled that the applicant could not use the privilege to obstruct relevant discovery essential for the defendant's defense.

Petition for RemovalWCJ biasFifth Amendmentself-incriminationevidentiary privilegespatient-litigant exceptionwaiverdiscoveryadministrative law judgeworkers' compensation
References
Case No. ADJ9976213 ADJ9977047
Regular
Jun 01, 2016

## MATTHEW SMITH, vs. ## ACTION ROOFING; SUSSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES,

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who sought to delay his trial due to pending criminal charges for fraud. The applicant argued that participating in the workers' compensation proceedings would force him to waive his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, causing prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied his petition for removal, finding that the defendant's interest in expeditiously resolving the case and continuing benefit payments outweighed the applicant's Fifth Amendment concerns. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that stays of civil proceedings due to parallel criminal cases are discretionary and not automatically granted.

Petition for RemovalFifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationWorkers' Compensation FraudPetition to DismissSuspension of BenefitsRestitutionDepositionCrime of Moral TurpitudeDeclaration of Readiness
References
Case No. ADJ9474597
Regular
Jun 17, 2018

SERGIO TERRAZAS vs. SEAL SCIENCE, INC., THE HARTFORD, ADMINISTERED BY ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted The Hartford's Petition for Reconsideration concerning an Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR). Hartford argued the original OACR incorrectly failed to deduct \$4,140.00 in permanent disability advances from the \$20,000 settlement. The WCAB rescinded the OACR, returning the matter to the trial level to determine if the Compromise and Release should be amended to reflect the advances. The WCJ will then decide whether to reinstate the original OACR or approve an amended one after further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseSet Aside OrderCompromise and ReleasePermanent Disability AdvancesOffsetRescindAlterAmendContinuing Jurisdiction
References
Case No. ADJ1683674
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

WILLIAM QUINN vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, as interlocutory procedural decisions are not appealable. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the petition for disqualification of the WCJ was denied based on the WCJ's report. Finally, the Board rejected the petitioner's reliance on the Fifth Amendment due to a lack of relevance.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionRemovalDisqualificationWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmInadequate RemedyFifth Amendment
References
Case No. ADJ3213121 (LBO 0361407)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

GLENDA M. BRUCE vs. COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that quashed the applicant's deposition. The applicant amended her claim to include hair loss and a fall after her last deposition. The Board found good cause for an additional deposition, as the defendant did not have notice of these new claims prior to the previous depositions. Therefore, the applicant is required to submit to a fifth deposition specifically addressing the hair loss and fall allegations.

Petition for RemovalQuashed DepositionCompensable ConsequencesAmended ApplicationIndustrial InjuryHair LossFallPrior NoticeFifth DepositionRescinded Order
References
Case No. ADJ4629373 (VNO 0532737) ADJ4177729 (VNO 0532739)
Regular
Mar 27, 2012

MIGUEL DELGADO vs. IFCO SYSTEMS NROTH AMERICA, INC., TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration, affirming its prior order to dismiss the petition as untimely. The attorney's arguments regarding Fifth Amendment protections, inappropriateness of sanctions, and inconsistencies in defense counsel's testimony were rejected. Sanctions were imposed due to the attorney making false statements about the timeliness of his petition, not for delaying the case or for self-incrimination. The Board found the attorney's failure to appear at a hearing and subsequent new evidence did not warrant re-litigation of the timeliness issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsAttorney's FeesTimelinessFindings and AwardDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedEx Parte CommunicationMisinformationLabor Code Section 5813
References
Case No. ADJ7818556
Regular
Nov 20, 2017

MARCOS CAMACHO vs. PIREATE STAFFING, LUMBERMEN'S INDEMNITY, In Liquidation, Administered By CIGA, EXCLUSIVE TENT RENTALS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's decision, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the WCJ erred by drawing a negative inference and barring recovery based on the applicant's assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination regarding Social Security numbers. The Board determined this assertion does not inherently undermine credibility or the claim's legitimacy. Crucially, the parties had stipulated to an industrial injury to the applicant's back, but the WCJ's flawed reasoning prevented any determination on apportionment, making the decision incomplete.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryHipsLower ExtremitiesPsycheFifth AmendmentSelf-Incrimination
References
Case No. ADJ7904261
Regular
Dec 02, 2013

MIRIAM D. ESPINOSA vs. JOSE L. SERRANO dba EL BAJIO MEXICAN RESTAURANT, IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Miriam Espinoza's petition for reconsideration of the denial of temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found the applicant failed to prove she was legally entitled to work in the United States at the time of her claim for TPD. This conclusion was based on evidence of a false social security number provided at hire and the applicant's assertion of Fifth Amendment rights regarding her immigration status. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to benefits based on an ability to return to modified or alternative work.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryTemporary Partial DisabilityImmigration StatusRight to WorkSocial Security NumberGreen CardFifth Amendment
References
Case No. ADJ9976213, ADJ9977047
Regular
Feb 22, 2017

MATTHEW SMITH vs. ACTION ROOFING, SUSSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal but dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ's prior findings were not a final order. The defendant sought to compel the applicant's deposition testimony and suspend benefits due to alleged fraud (playing softball while claiming disability), but had not proven a conviction for workers' compensation fraud. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's refusal to compel testimony based on the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. However, the issue of the applicant's assertion of a right to privacy at deposition was deferred and returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoint Findings of FactWorkers' Compensation FraudFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationRight to PrivacyDepositionCompel Testimony
References
Case No. ADJ7014135
Regular
Nov 29, 2010

VIANEY VARGAS vs. SELECT STAFFING, ESIS

This case involves an applicant who invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition, refusing to answer questions related to her identifying information and potential prior claims. The defendant sought to bar benefits, arguing the applicant's refusal hindered discovery necessary to determine liability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, recognizing that while the applicant cannot be compelled to incriminate herself, she also cannot use the privilege to shield herself from providing relevant information needed for the defense. The Board remanded the case for the WCJ to determine which specific questions are directly relevant to the litigation, allowing the applicant to answer them or face potential dismissal of her claim.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for Order Suspending Action and Barring BenefitsPetition for SanctionsFifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationDue ProcessCross-examinationDiscoveryDirectly RelevantLabor Code 4050
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,882 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