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. SFO 0492030
Regular
Jul 05, 2007

PATRICIA MIRANDA vs. EQUITY OFFICE PROPERTIES TRUST, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO., GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal filed by Equity Office Properties Trust. The defendant sought to rescind an order continuing the case and allowing applicant discovery, arguing irreparable harm from further costs and delays. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant, adopting the WCJ's reasoning for the continuance to obtain a qualified medical evaluator report.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceContinuanceDiscoveryIrreparable HarmWCAB Rule 10416WCJ Report and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ8775068
Regular
May 10, 2019

CHRIS BOTSKO vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Southern California Edison's petition for removal, which sought to prevent a supplemental medical report. Edison argued this would cause irreparable harm through increased expenses and delays. The Board found Edison failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, noting that utilizing an existing QME is a standard method to develop the medical record. Therefore, removal was deemed an inappropriate remedy.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical ExaminerAdministrative Law JudgeSupplemental ReportPrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerRegular Physician
References
Case No. ADJ3134104 (MON 0361046)
Regular
May 01, 2012

NARCISO ESTRADA vs. GOLD STAR JEWELRY INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, which sought to change a scheduled mandatory settlement conference (MSC) to a trial. The Board held that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, neither of which was demonstrated. The applicant's contention that a brief delay for an MSC would cause irreparable harm was rejected. Therefore, the petition was denied as the applicant did not meet the stringent standards for removal.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJOrder Rescinding and Vacating OrderMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)substantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationexpeditiouslyextraordinary remedy
References
Case No. ADJ8310199
Regular
May 11, 2016

MARTIN MENDEZ vs. SC STAFFING SOLUTIONS, ULTIMATE PERSONNEL SERVICES, AIG for NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO.

Defendant AIG sought removal of an order joining it as a party, arguing prejudice and irreparable harm due to a prior dismissal without new evidence. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify this discretionary remedy. The Board cited that AIG failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition to remove the case to the Board was denied.

Petition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeParty DefendantReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedySignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmIndependent ReviewWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5310
References
Case No. ADJ9477473
Regular
Mar 11, 2016

JOHN STRINGER vs. DEFENDER DIRECT, TRAVELERS PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal concerning an expedited hearing order. The applicant argued the WCJ's order to file documents and brief was improper and caused prejudice and irreparable harm. The Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only for substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, neither of which was sufficiently demonstrated. The Board concluded that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is eventually issued.

Petition for RemovalExpedited HearingAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDefendant's AnswerReport of WCJ
References
Case No. ADJ7479755
Regular
Feb 24, 2015

DAVID LOPEZ vs. PATTERSON LIFT TRUCKS, SPARTA INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant sought removal to vacate a finding that vocational expert reports lacked substantial evidence due to not observing the applicant's visible foot injury. The Board found no such prejudice or irreparable harm, deeming reconsideration an adequate remedy. The Board also noted a processing delay due to a file misplacement.

Petition for RemovalVocational Rehabilitation ExpertSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code Section 5502(d)(3)Vocational ExpertsAMA Guides
References
Case No. ADJ8255415, ADJ8684388, ADJ8255413
Regular
Dec 15, 2015

LERHONE WILLIAMS vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES-IN HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding it failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the defendant's petition did not meet the extraordinary criteria for removal. Additionally, the defendant's attorneys were admonished for violating WCAB rules by attaching unnecessary documents. The WCJ recommended denial due to the petition's silence on prejudice, irreparable harm, and inadequacy of reconsideration.

Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10842(c)SanctionsPanel QMECognitive ImpairmentNeuropsychological IssuesPsychology Panel
References
Case No. ADJ1779127 (MON 0234828); ADJ256878 (MON 0304707) ADJ949225 (MON 0333849) ADJ1998710 (MON 0228630) ADJ2829762 (MON 0228631) ADJ1620819 (MON 0228628) ADJ4115030 (MON 0228632) ADJ1386897 (MON 0228633) ADJ4577376 (MON 0228629) ADJ2634948 (LAO 0723384)
Regular
Mar 15, 2011

MURIAL LAZARUS vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, which sought to reverse an order to return multiple cases to Agreed Medical Evaluators. The defendant argued irreparable harm from paying for additional evaluations and prejudice from delays. The Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which are required for removal as it is an extraordinary remedy. The Board also noted logistical details regarding venue for the applicant's ten cases.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAgreed Medical EvaluatorsOff CalendarSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedVenue TransferAdministrative Law JudgeDefendant
References
Case No. ADJ9932360
Regular
Feb 25, 2018

MAXIMILIANO MORA CORZA vs. BELLA VINEYARD AG SERVICES, INC., STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant alleging industrial injuries to multiple body parts. The defendant, Bella Vineyard AG Services, Inc., sought to bifurcate the trial to address post-termination issues separately from all other issues. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal. The Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate the required significant prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal, and the potential costs of discovery do not constitute irreparable harm.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalIndustrial InjuryAOE/COEBifurcatePost-termination issueIrreparable harmDiscoveryQualified Medical EvaluatorJudicial discretion
References
Case No. ADJ6761265
Regular
Sep 25, 2015

LUIS INIGO vs. GLEN HAVE MEMORIAL GARDENS, INC.; DISCOVERY PROPERTY & CASUALTY, Administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal because it failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant argued that striking a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) report due to alleged untimeliness would cause undue delay and render prior expenses meaningless. However, the Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that mere additional expense does not constitute irreparable harm. Therefore, removal was deemed an inappropriate and extraordinary remedy in this case.

Petition for RemovalWCABQME PanelStrike QME ReportTimeliness ObjectionIrreparable HarmExtraordinary RemedyMedical-Legal EvaluationLabor Code Section 4062.5California Code of Regulations
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,550 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