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. ADJ7423046
Regular
Aug 20, 2012

MITCHELL CONTE vs. LYONS MAGNUS, INC., TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant's petition for removal, which the Appeals Board denied. The lien claimant sought to compel discovery of documents from the defendant employer, but their request was deemed "grossly overbroad." The Board noted the lien claimant could have obtained medical reports directly and is not entitled to other documents as they are not a party. The Board also admonished both parties for boilerplate filings that wasted the Board's time.

Petition for RemovalPetition to QuashFirst Request for Production of DocumentsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantOverbroad DiscoveryWCJWalk-through DocumentDeclaration of ReadinessMedical Reports
References
Case No. ADJ9426494
Regular
Jun 10, 2015

BARBARA SWENSON vs. COMPASS HEALTH, MURPHY AND BEANE, INC.

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the applicant sought interview transcripts and statements of defense witnesses. The judge initially ordered the defendant to produce all such materials. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the order was overbroad and violated due process by failing to account for work product and attorney-client privilege. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, amending the original order. The amended order requires the defendant to provide requested materials, excluding those protected by privilege, for which a privilege log must be filed.

Petition for RemovalInterview TranscriptsWitness StatementsWork ProductAttorney-Client PrivilegePrivilege LogDue ProcessOverbroad OrderAppeals BoardWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ7247116 ADJ7241415 ADJ7407598 ADJ9052220 ADJ9432209
Regular
Feb 12, 2015

DOROTHY TRISTAN vs. CITY OF FRESNO, AMERICAN ALL-RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for removal regarding a discovery order. The employer argued that releasing documents related to a prior DFEH/EEOC discrimination claim and allowing a continued deposition would cause irreparable harm due to privilege concerns. The Board found the employer failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, emphasizing that privilege objections can still be raised for specific documents. The Board also noted the prolonged discovery dispute and encouraged expeditious resolution of the underlying workers' compensation claims.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionDocument ProductionPrivileged RecordsDFEHEEOCLabor Code Section 132aDiscovery DisputeMandatory Settlement Conference
References
Case No. ADJ2000734
Regular
Apr 14, 2011

ESTELA OREGON (Deceased), ARMANDO SOTELO, et al vs. ENGLANDER TUALATIN SLEEP PRODUCTS, INC., & COMMERCE & INDUSTRY/AIG CLAIM SERVICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior decision in the case of Estela Oregon (Deceased) v. Englander Tualatin Sleep Products, Inc. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Additionally, the petitioner was admonished for submitting new documents not presented at trial.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportDeny ReconsiderationNew DocumentsNot Introduced in EvidenceTrialWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeceased ApplicantDefendant InsurerAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ6784736
Regular
May 24, 2010

CYNTHIA ARMANDO vs. ENDODONTIC ASSOCIATES CORP., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order compelling production of claims file documents. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the original order, and issued a new order. The new order requires the defendant to produce non-privileged portions of the claims file and witness statements, and to describe any privileged documents separately. The Board also clarified that statutory privilege provisions, including attorney work product, are applicable in workers' compensation proceedings.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationClaims Investigation FileAttorney Workproduct PrivilegeWitness StatementsInterim OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAbsolute Work ProductQualified Work Product
References
Case No. ADJ2635006 (STK 0206833)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

SAMUEL B. JOHNSON, III vs. CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying discovery requests was not a final order. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The Board affirmed the WCJ's discovery ruling as reasonable and returned the matter to the trial level. The applicant may seek reconsideration of a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJdiscovery requestsRequest for AdmissionsRequest for Authenticationfinal ordersubstantial prejudiceirreparable harm
References
Case No. ADJ7728639 ADJ7728660 ADJ7759971
Regular
Mar 01, 2012

CHAD HABERMAN vs. THE SUN VALLEY GROUP

This case involves the defendant's Petition for Removal after a WCJ denied their request to compel a continued deposition of the applicant in Oregon. The defendant argued prejudice due to potential travel costs for their attorney if the deposition remained in California. However, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy and reconsideration would be adequate to address future decisions on discovery. The parties were encouraged to resolve discovery disputes informally.

Petition for RemovalPetition to CompelPetition to Quashworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJapplicant's depositionproduction of documentsGrant's PassOregonEureka
References
Case No. SFO 0485029
Regular
Aug 10, 2007

MARIA CARDENAS vs. GALAXY DESSERTS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior order denying the defendant's petition to terminate temporary disability indemnity. The Board held that the 104-week limitation under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) begins from the date of the first temporary disability payment, not the date of injury or the first compensable period. This decision aligns with precedent establishing that the commencement date for the limitation is the actual date indemnity was first paid.

temporary disability indemnityPetition to Terminate LiabilityLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)104 compensable weeksfirst payment of temporary disability indemnityfirst date of compensable temporary total disabilityHawkins v. Amberwood Products
References
Case No. SDO 0328208
Regular
Mar 17, 2008

ARMANDO ADAME vs. AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC. (dba JBA HEADERS), ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board clarified that for Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) purposes, the commencement of temporary disability payments is the date the employer first mails a temporary disability indemnity check, not when EDD benefits begin. Furthermore, EDD benefits, even if reimbursed by the employer, do not count towards the 104-week cap on temporary disability payments. Consequently, the employer's liability for further temporary disability payments extends from the date of the first actual indemnity payment until October 6, 2007.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardArmando AdameAutomotive Engineered ProductsZenith Insurance CompanyLabor Code section 4656(c)(1)Temporary Total DisabilityTemporary Disability IndemnityEmployment Development DepartmentUnemployment Compensation DisabilityHawkins v. Amberwood Products
References
Case No. ADJ1415058 (FRE 0192009) MF ADJ4686427 (FRE 0193449)
Regular
Dec 18, 2017

ANGEL VALENZUELA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The defendant employer sought removal to challenge an order compelling the deposition of their claims adjuster and production of documents. The defendant argued that as a legally uninsured employer, discovery from their adjuster (SCIF/SCS) required subpoenas, not just notice. The Appeals Board denied removal, holding that workers' compensation proceedings are not bound by civil discovery rules and the adjuster, as the employer's agent, is subject to discovery via notice. The Board found no irreparable prejudice and affirmed the WCJ's order compelling discovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeMotion to Compel DepositionProduction of DocumentsState Compensation Insurance FundLegally Uninsured EmployerSubpoenaService of NoticeLabor Code
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,768 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