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. ADJ8497883
Regular
Jan 27, 2014

ANGEL ROBLES vs. UKANI ENTERPRISES INC. \& MIRMAR ENTERPRISES INC.; THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought to remove an order that placed the matter off calendar, arguing discovery should have closed and the case proceed to trial. The Appeals Board denied the petition, explaining that the administrative law judge correctly took the case off calendar because a pretrial conference statement was not filed, a requirement for proceeding to trial after a mandatory settlement conference. The Board noted that discovery closes at the mandatory settlement conference, and if the case is not resolved at the next one, a pretrial statement must be filed, and the case will then be continued to trial.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosingPretrial Conference StatementLabor Code Section 5502(d)(3)Off Calendar OrderDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedAdministrative Law JudgePermanent Disability Rating
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davison v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement order in a workers' compensation matter. The court initially erred by concluding that New Hampshire Insurance Company (NHIC), the compensation carrier, had sufficient notice of an initial settlement conference in 1984 and had waived its right to contest the reasonableness of the settlement. It was undisputed that NHIC was not served with papers prior to the initial conference, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law section 29 (5). The court also addressed the timeliness of the plaintiff's application for a nunc pro tunc compromise order, made 19 months after the initial settlement, ruling it timely as the delay was not due to plaintiff's neglect or fault and NHIC was not prejudiced. However, due to doubts about whether NHIC was fully heard and if adequate consideration was given to its concerns regarding the settlement's fairness (specifically regarding medical expenses, loss of consortium offset, and allocations to children not parties), the order was reversed. The matter was remitted for the development of a record and specific findings on the reasonableness of the settlement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementNotice RequirementsNunc Pro Tunc OrderCompromise OrderCarrier LiabilityReasonableness of SettlementLoss of ConsortiumMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. LAO 810766
Regular
Mar 07, 2008

ALISON FAIRCHILD vs. DENNY'S RESTAURANT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal because defense counsel claims they did not receive notice of the mandatory settlement conference and trial. The Board found that defense counsel likely did not receive proper service at their correct address and was thus deprived of notice and an opportunity to appear. Consequently, the scheduled March 13, 2008 trial has been redesignated as a mandatory settlement conference.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceNotice of HearingService of ProcessDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedOfficial Address RecordIndustrial InjuryWaitressMultiple Sclerosis
References
0
Case No. ADJ5812319
Regular
Mar 28, 2013

EILEEN FRANCE vs. SUTTER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SUTTER HEALTH

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding the WCJ erred by continuing the case for further medical evidence and QME panels instead of scheduling it for trial. The applicant failed to object to the defendant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed, and discovery should have closed at the Mandatory Settlement Conference. Consequently, the Board redesignated the upcoming hearing as a Mandatory Settlement Conference and returned the case for further proceedings leading to trial, deferring issues of due diligence and medical record development to the trial judge.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceQualified Medical EvaluatorDiscoveryMedical EvidenceDue DiligenceExtraordinary CircumstancesMedical Record DevelopmentStipulations
References
1
Case No. ADJ7300791
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

James Larsh vs. CITY OF MONROVIA

The City of Monrovia petitioned for removal, arguing the Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction as it was never formally joined as a defendant. While the applicant alleged an injury against the County of Riverside, a claim form also indicated a cumulative trauma injury against Monrovia, which Monrovia had participated in proceedings for, including a Mandatory Settlement Conference. The Appeals Board granted the removal petition, finding insufficient procedural formality, and ordered the case redesignated as a Mandatory Settlement Conference for Monrovia to be formally joined and the application amended.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of MonroviaPermissibly Self-InsuredOpinion and Order Granting Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalApplicantIndustrial InjuryRespiratory SystemCumulative Trauma
References
1
Case No. ADJ8514121
Regular
Aug 04, 2015

SHEREE MIZZI vs. DAL POGETTO AND CO., LLP, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendants sought removal of an order denying their request for a trial setting and taking the matter off calendar, arguing for discovery closure by a prior mandatory settlement conference and a trial. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board recommended a mandatory settlement conference and that discovery be closed appropriately. The WCJ was also directed to consider the admissibility of a vocational rehabilitation report and potential sanctions related to applicant's counsel's conduct.

Petition for RemovalDeniedWCJMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryVocational Rehabilitation EvaluationSanctionsLabor Code section 5502(d)Labor Code section 5813Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8
References
2
Case No. ADJ1243572 (OAK 0342959)
Regular
Oct 30, 2013

MARIA ESTEBAN vs. WELLS FARGO BANK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Wells Fargo's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to take the case off calendar. The Board found that the applicant's stated strategic decision to pursue further discovery after the mandatory settlement conference violated Labor Code section 5502(d)(3), which closes discovery at that point. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for a new mandatory settlement conference, with discovery to close as of February 4, 2013. Commissioner Brass dissented, arguing removal was an extraordinary remedy not warranted here.

Petition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureVocational EvidenceDue DiligenceRescinded OrderPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorsTotal DisabilityIndustrial Injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ7074256
Regular
May 23, 2014

ALFONSO RODRIGUEZ vs. DANDEE TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over whether the applicant, Alfonso Rodriguez, adequately pursued medical evaluations before a mandatory settlement conference. The applicant sustained an injury in 2009 and has undergone evaluations by an Agreed Medical Evaluator and Qualified Medical Evaluators. However, at the settlement conference, the applicant claimed he still required treating physician reports in psychiatry and internal medicine, leading the trial judge to take the case off calendar. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, finding the applicant waived objections to proceeding by not objecting to the defendant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed or the QME panels. The Board rescinded the order and returned the case to the trial level for another settlement conference and potential trial, emphasizing the applicant's lack of diligence in discovery.

Petition for RemovalRescind OrderOff CalendarAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLabor Code section 4061(i)Due DiligenceDiscovery
References
3
Case No. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685) ADJ3521523 (OAK 0322592) ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Nov 19, 2015

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order setting a mandatory settlement conference and deferring the request to set aside a prior order compelling medical examination attendance. The Board found that the issue of setting aside the two-year-old compelling order must be resolved before a settlement conference. Applicant must comply with the order or show good cause for setting it aside, and defendant may seek an order under Labor Code section 4053. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, starting with a status conference.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJDiscoverySet Aside OrderLabor Code section 4053Rescind OrderTrial Level
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,638 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