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. ADJ10488034
Regular
May 07, 2018

GILDO BEITIA vs. CITY OF OAKLAND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition for removal, upholding an administrative law judge's order that limited the defendant's subpoenas for medical records. The defendant argued this order denied due process and improperly restricted discovery into non-industrial conditions affecting the applicant's alleged injuries. The WCAB found the subpoenas were impermissibly overbroad under existing precedent, which limits discovery to matters directly relevant to the claimed injuries. A dissenting opinion argued the limitations were too restrictive, especially for conditions like weight gain and hypertension which can have numerous causes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashCompensable Consequence InjuriesDiscovery LimitationsPatient-Litigant ExceptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeOverbroad SubpoenaDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ8675755
Regular
Dec 30, 2014

MARIA MATA vs. PARK VIEW GARDENS, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, YORK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendants, Park View Gardens and Safety National Casualty Corporation. The defendants sought removal of an interlocutory order allowing applicant Maria Mata to conduct further discovery related to additional claimed body parts. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Administrative Law Judge's report recommended denial, noting the defendants' prior awareness of the additional body parts and their lack of timely objection to discovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalInterlocutory OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationFinal OrderDeclaration of ReadinessOff CalendarFurther Discovery
References
Case No. ADJ4224771 (SBR 0301746)
Regular
Nov 03, 2010

ANGELINA WILSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant petitioned for removal after stipulating to limited discovery in an applicant's workers' compensation case involving multiple industrial injuries. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding no good cause to relieve defendant of its stipulation. The Board reasoned that defendant's claim of duress was unfounded, as they were not forced into the stipulation. Furthermore, the case had not yet proceeded to trial or submission for decision, precluding a determination that the medical record was deficient.

Petition for RemovalStipulationLimited DiscoveryAgreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs)Reopening DiscoveryChange of VenueConcealed RecordsPrior CounselDuressGood Cause
References
Case No. ADJ9750218
Regular
Oct 07, 2015

RAMIRO LOPEZ vs. PENTERMAN FARMING COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding a WCJ's order limiting discovery of medical records to the applicant's musculoskeletal system. The defendant argued this limitation denied due process and prejudiced their defense, but the Board found that the applicant only waives physician-patient privilege for conditions put in issue by the claim. Discovery beyond the claimed injury must be demonstrably relevant and justified by specific information, which the defendant failed to establish. The Board concluded the WCJ's order appropriately balanced the applicant's privacy with the defendant's discovery needs.

Petition for RemovalSubpoenas Duces TecumOrder Limiting SubpoenasMusculoskeletal SystemDue ProcessMotion to QuashDeclaration of ReadinessPatient-Litigant ExceptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeScope of Discovery
References
Case No. ADJ7848295
Regular
Apr 10, 2012

RAMONA BURTON vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and dismissed reconsideration of a WCJ's order. The WCJ had improperly taken the case off calendar and allowed discovery to reopen for a new psychiatric injury claim, despite the applicant filing a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed indicating trial readiness. This prejudiced the defendant by allowing the applicant to develop evidence for an unclaimed injury after discovery closure. The Board ordered discovery closed as of the original Mandatory Settlement Conference date and returned the case to trial level for a new MSC to prepare for trial.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedInjury to PsychePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent and Stationary StatusReopened DiscoveryClosure of DiscoveryInterlocutory Orders
References
Case No. ADJ9 994758
Regular
Mar 07, 2016

CHRISTOPHER LOMANTO vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA\/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the defendant sought removal of an order that had taken the case off the calendar despite defendant's objection. The defendant argued the applicant's claim was barred by the statute of limitations, which should be decided before further discovery. The Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, finding merit in their argument. Consequently, the prior order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for adjudication of the statute of limitations issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalStatute of LimitationsDenial of ClaimAdjudicateDiscoveryPetition for RemovalOrder Taking Case off CalendarRescindedTrial Level
References
Case No. ADJ11292762 ADJ11292764 ADJ12720128
Regular
Feb 07, 2020

LETICIA GARCIA vs. CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS, INC./TRAVELERS, ARM MANAGEMENT, INC./STATE FARM

Defendants petitioned for removal, arguing the WCJ improperly took the case off calendar after the applicant filed a new application for the same injury, which they claim was a tactic to reopen discovery past the mandatory settlement conference closure. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter to the trial level. The Board will determine if the new application is duplicative and, if so, it should be dismissed, with potential sanctions considered. This ensures discovery closure rules are not circumvented.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderDuplicative ApplicationReopening DiscoveryDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code Section 5502WCAB JurisdictionInoperative Statute of LimitationsSanction
References
Case No. LAO 0848876
Regular
Dec 27, 2007

MARIA MURILLO vs. HI POINT/NORCO RANCH, REPUBLIC INSURANCE by CRAWFORD AND COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) determined that a diskectomy is not an amputation under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C), limiting temporary disability to 104 weeks. The WCAB affirmed the finding that temporary disability should have been paid from October 6, 2006, to November 24, 2006, but reversed the decision to extend benefits beyond the statutory 104-week limit due to a delay in authorizing surgery. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to additional temporary disability indemnity only for the specified period, with the last payment due November 24, 2006.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardMachine operatorIndustrial injuryBilateral shouldersBack injuryTemporary disability indemnityLabor Code section 4656Amputation
References
Case No. ADJ8572033
Regular
Jan 23, 2017

NELLY MOLINA vs. MACY'S CORPORATE SERVICES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By MACY'S

This case involves a lien claim by Industrial Healthcare for medical services provided to applicant Nelly Molina from November 6, 2012, to September 10, 2013. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of an order dismissing the lien, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that the lien was untimely. The WCAB ruled that because the last date of service (September 10, 2013) was after July 1, 2013, the 18-month statute of limitations under Labor Code section 4903.5(a) applied, making the lien filed on September 2, 2015, tardy. A dissenting opinion argued that continuous services provided both before and after July 1, 2013, should be subject to the three-year statute of limitations, allowing for a single lien filing.

Labor Code section 4903.5(a)statute of limitationslien claimreconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lienworkers' compensation administrative law judgeIndustrial HealthcareInnovative Medical ManagementMacy's Corporate Servicescontinuous treatment
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,641 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