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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. ADJ9625941
Regular
Oct 15, 2015

DANIEL BORGSTROM vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHANNEL ISLANDS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration, as they were taken from non-final interlocutory orders concerning a discovery dispute over deposing the Chief of Police. The applicant's petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the WCJ rescinded the order denying the deposition, thereby allowing it. Finally, the defendant's petition for removal was denied, as they failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and liberal discovery for the fair resolution of cases was favored.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder RescindingDepositionChief of PoliceDiscovery DisputeNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ11377839 ADJ11377840
Regular
Jul 09, 2019

OLIVIA BARAJAS vs. JUSTIN VINEYARDS & WINERY, LLC, BROADSPIRE

The applicant sought reconsideration or removal of an order compelling her attendance at a deposition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely and denied the petition for removal. The WCAB found the order compelling attendance was an interlocutory discovery order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for the extraordinary remedy of removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceDepositionWCJDiscovery OrderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ4432553
Regular
May 06, 2014

MARTIN ZAVALA vs. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, QBC, DAVID BERNS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by Martin Zavala. The WCAB clarified that reconsideration can only be sought for final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities. Interlocutory procedural orders, such as those concerning evidence, discovery, or trial settings, are not final orders and therefore not subject to reconsideration. Consequently, Zavala's petition, likely challenging such an interlocutory order, was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationInterlocutory OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityPre-trial OrdersEvidenceDiscoveryVenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ8091143
Regular
Jul 24, 2013

ELISE AINSLEY vs. RESCARE INC.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed from a non-final, interlocutory discovery order, which is not subject to reconsideration. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, adopting the judge's reasoning and finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant was admonished for improperly seeking reconsideration of an interim order. Ultimately, both the petition for reconsideration and removal were dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory DecisionNon-Final OrderProcedural OrderEvidentiary DecisionDiscovery OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ8081723
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

BEATRIZ DELGADO vs. INDUSPAC CALIFORNIA, INC./WESTERN FOAM PACKING PRODUCTS, PINNACLE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Beatriz Delgado. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition. The WCAB reasoned that reconsideration can only be sought for final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities, not for interlocutory procedural orders. Pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, or venue are considered interlocutory and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityPre-trial OrdersEvidenceDiscoverySetting for Trial
References
Case No. ADJ4173320(VNO 0386574)
Regular
Nov 18, 2019

RENEE SOTILE vs. KTLA, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by BROADSPE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Renee Sotile's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal was based on the fact that reconsideration can only be granted for final orders, decisions, or awards, not interlocutory procedural orders. Pre-trial orders concerning evidence, discovery, trial setting, or venue are considered interlocutory and do not determine substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the Board found Sotile's petition was improperly filed and dismissed it.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWCJAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5900
References
Case No. ADJ460672 (SFO 0499592) ADJ1224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Feb 17, 2009

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA. COM and SYSMASTER CORPORATION, GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order being challenged was procedural and not a final appealable order. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The applicant's arguments regarding rescinded orders, discovery abuse, and due process were unaddressed as the procedural nature of the order precluded review. The Board cautioned the applicant against filing frivolous petitions, warning of potential sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalInterlocutory OrderProcedural OrderFinal OrderLabor Code section 5900Substantive RightsDiscovery IssuesAbuse of Discovery
References
Case No. ADJ8433569
Regular
Jan 28, 2015

MICHAEL KATZ vs. CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Applicant's petition for reconsideration. This dismissal was based on the principle that reconsideration can only be sought for final orders, not interlocutory procedural rulings. The WCAB clarified that pre-trial orders concerning evidence, discovery, trial scheduling, or venue are considered interlocutory and do not determine substantive rights. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as it was not filed in response to a final, appealable decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityWCJAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPre-trial Order
References
Case No. ADJ12180724
Regular
Oct 02, 2019

JENNIFER GUZMAN vs. CITY OF BRENTWOOD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded a discovery order allowing the applicant to submit non-medical documents to a PQME, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the original order to be an interlocutory discovery decision, not a final one, thus dismissing the petition for reconsideration. The Board determined that a proper evidentiary record was lacking to support the WCJ's order, requiring a hearing to allow both parties to present evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationDiscovery OrderExpedited HearingDue ProcessPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderAdmitted Evidence
References
Showing 1-10 of 8,872 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