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. ADJ10596146
Regular
Jan 30, 2018

GARY OLSEN vs. WOOD COLONY WOODWORK, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Gary Olsen's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory order concerning a qualified medical examination. The WCAB also denied Olsen's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and Olsen failed to demonstrate why reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy later. Therefore, both the reconsideration and removal petitions were denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionPanel Qualified Medical ExaminationExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
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. 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. ADJ8874049
Regular
Apr 18, 2014

VERN FLEMING vs. BROOKLYN NETS FKA NEW JERSEY NETS, TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) recommendation. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate such prejudice or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied based on the reasoning in the WCJ's report.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadequate remedyextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ9718369
Regular
Aug 03, 2017

MARIA GALVAN vs. BOLTHOUSE FARMS, Broadspire

This case involves an applicant, Maria Galvan, versus employer Bolthouse Farms. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Galvan's Petition for Removal. The WCAB emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would occur. Furthermore, the applicant must show reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Since these criteria were not met, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
Case No. ADJ12165480 ADJ12165483 ADJ12659992
Regular
Oct 07, 2020

KAREN VOTAW vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding it an extraordinary remedy that was not warranted in this case. The Board determined that the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted, nor did they show that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The Board also admonished the defendant's attorney for improperly attaching unadmitted evidence to the petition. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyAppeals Board Rule 10945(c)(2)WCJ ReportCase Nos.ADJ12165480
References
Case No. ADJ2827250
Regular
Nov 22, 2016

LIZA GONZALEZ vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, YORK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal because removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant failed to demonstrate that denial of removal would cause such harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. While the defendant's petition for reconsideration was found timely, this did not alter the outcome regarding removal. The Board adopted the reasoning of the administrative law judge, denying the petition.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedydenial of removaltimelinessproof of servicelien conference
References
Case No. ADJ10902087
Regular
Jan 24, 2019

CURTIS SEYMORE vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PSI

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Seymore's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interim order, not a final decision that determined substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied Seymore's petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. Seymore failed to demonstrate that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy later in the proceedings. Therefore, both the reconsideration and removal petitions were denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary Decision
References
Case No. ADJ8368816
Regular
Feb 25, 2015

DOUGLAS PINK vs. CAMPORA PROPANE SERVICE, CRUM & FOSTER INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Douglas Pink's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that Pink failed to demonstrate such harm, nor did he prove that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Additional deficiencies in the petition included lack of evidence for a requested evidentiary hearing and the applicant's attorney's apparent failure to adequately notify the applicant of a medical examination.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportMinutes of HearingEvidentiary HearingQualified Medical Examiner
References
Case No. ADJ9498698 ADJ9537832
Regular
Apr 08, 2015

RAFEEK RAHEEM vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed an applicant's petition for reconsideration, finding the prior decision was not a "final" order as it only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue. The Board also denied the applicant's petition for removal, deeming it an extraordinary remedy not warranted by the circumstances. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the denial of removal, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy later. The Board concluded the issuance of a Qualified Medical Evaluator panel did not cause any demonstrated harm or prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalfinal ordersubstantive right or liabilitythreshold issueinterlocutory procedural decisionevidentiary decisionextraordinary remedysubstantial prejudice
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,393 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