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. ADJ9071036
Regular
May 05, 2017

JOSE ZAMORA vs. TRINITY SPORTS, INC.; SAMSUNG FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Trinity Sports, Inc.'s Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy only granted for substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the defendant failed to demonstrate. The Board found that reconsideration will be an adequate remedy if a decision adverse to the defendant is ultimately made. The defendant can raise their arguments before the trial judge.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedyCortezKleemannCal. Code Regs.
References
Case No. ADJ9868813, ADJ10013839
Regular
Feb 02, 2018

CECILIA ECHEVERRIA DIAZ vs. HOWARD'S SHOPWRITE PHARMACY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Cecilia Echeverria Diaz's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB found that the applicant did not demonstrate such prejudice or harm, nor 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 BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyCortezKleemannAdjudication
References
Case No. ADJ3755958
Regular
Feb 13, 2019

NANCY ANN FINKBEINER vs. RALEY'S FAMILY OF FINE STORES, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Nancy Ann Finkbeiner's Petition for Removal. The Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy and Finkbeiner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial. Furthermore, she did not show that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy should an adverse decision be issued. Therefore, her petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalDenying PetitionRemoval RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportAppeals BoardCortezKleemann
References
Case No. ADJ16771687
Regular
Oct 14, 2025

Susan Gaona vs. ARB, Inc.; Primoris Services Corp.

Defendant ARB, INC. and PRIMORIS SERVICES CORP., administered by THE HARTFORD, filed a petition for removal challenging an August 13, 2025, order setting the matter for trial, asserting that discovery was incomplete. Applicant Susan Gaona filed an answer, and the WCJ recommended denying removal. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board upheld the WCJ's recommendation, denying the petition. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy and found no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. They also stated that parties would have the opportunity to develop the record and raise discovery issues during the trial process.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmitted EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceWCJ ReportOrder Setting TrialDiscovery
References
Case No. ADJ10110716
Regular
May 26, 2017

JANELLE JAVANSHIR vs. UCLA MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied UCLA Medical Center's Petition for Removal in the case of *Javanshir v. UCLA Medical Center*. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. The WCAB found that the defendant failed to meet this high burden of proof, relying on the Administrative Law Judge's analysis of the merits. Therefore, the petition was denied, and the case will proceed through the standard appeals process.

RemovalAppeals BoardWCJsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedyPetition for RemovalSEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICESUCLA MEDICAL CENTER
References
Case No. ADJ10586958
Regular

INOCENTA PALENCIA vs. NESTLE PREPARED FOODS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns Inocenta Palencia's workers' compensation claim against Nestle. Palencia filed a Petition for Removal, an extraordinary remedy. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding Palencia failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board also determined that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy should an adverse decision be made later.

Petition for RemovalDeniedAppeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyextraordinary remedyCortez
References
Case No. ADJ11396782
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

SALVADOR RODRIQUEZ-GOMEZ vs. CONTROL AIR CONDITIONING CORPORATION

In *Rodriguez-Gomez v. Control Air Conditioning Corporation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result without it, and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate either of these conditions were met, and therefore denied the petition.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyFinal Decision
References
Case No. ADJ17764140; ADJ17764143
Regular
Oct 08, 2025

JUAN SIGALA vs. FST MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC; TRAVELERS

The applicant, Juan Sigala, filed a petition for removal challenging an order that set the case for a priority conference, arguing that discovery was incomplete. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition and the WCJ's recommendation to deny removal, found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the substantial prejudice or irreparable harm required for such an extraordinary remedy. The Board emphasized that a priority conference serves to monitor discovery progress and does not warrant removal. Consequently, the Board denied the petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalPriority ConferenceDiscoverySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyWCJAppeals BoardFST Management Group
References
Case No. ADJ9963968
Regular
Jun 23, 2017

DELLFINIA HARDY vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Dellfinia Hardy's Petition for Removal. The WCAB characterized removal as an extraordinary remedy, granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denial, and reconsideration would be inadequate. Based on the administrative law judge's report analyzing the petitioner's arguments, the WCAB found no such prejudice or harm, thus denying the petition.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyFinal DecisionAdverse Decision
References
Case No. ADJ9286972
Regular
Mar 14, 2017

LEON BURTON vs. DOUGLAS STEEL SUPPLY, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that the WCAB rarely grants. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge.

RemovalPetition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyADJ9286972Douglas Steel Supply
References
Showing 1-10 of 79 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