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. ADJ11344177
Regular
Jul 23, 2019

RONALD BELL, JR. vs. ALLIED UNIVERSAL TOPCO, LLC, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding a prior order that quashed subpoenas and directed the defendant to produce documents from a third party. The WCAB found the original order exceeded the administrative law judge's (ALJ) authority by ordering the defendant to produce documents they could not control and by going beyond the scope of the motion to quash. This decision ensures the defendant's right to object to discovery without being compelled to produce third-party records they lack the power to obtain. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

RemovalOrder Quashing SubpoenasOrder to ProduceCustodian of RecordsSubpoena Duces TecumDiscovery StatutesLabor Code § 130Code of Civil ProcedureInterlocutory OrdersStanding
References
Case No. ADJ10738767
Regular
Apr 21, 2023

JEANETTE FRANCE vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER

This case involves applicant's attempt to compel the personal appearance of an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) via subpoena duces tecum. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the applicant's motion as a Petition for Removal of the WCJ's order quashing the subpoena. The WCAB denied removal because the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as required by removal standards. Additionally, the Board noted the petition lacked proper verification, which would have been grounds for dismissal had it not been denied on its merits.

Petition for RemovalMotion to VacateOrder Quashing Subpoena Duces TecumAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Good CauseWCAB Rule 10682Personal AppearanceMedical EvidenceSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ4385917 (AHM 0070664)
Regular
May 10, 2010

CYNTHIA BECKER vs. ST. JUDE MEDICAL CENTER, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the order denying their motion to quash subpoenas was not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, stating there was no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable injury. The defendant had argued the WCJ erred in denying their motion to quash subpoenas for dental records and other facilities. The Board concluded that any objections could be raised later if costs were incurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalMotion to QuashSubpoenas Duces TecumInterlocutory Procedural OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ229693 (MON 0362437)
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

JUAN PALMA vs. NORMAN'S NURSERY WHOLESALE GROWERS

A lien claimant, former attorney for the applicant, filed a motion to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge, alleging bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) construed this motion as a petition for disqualification. The petition was denied because it was not properly verified under oath as required by WCAB Rule 10844. Furthermore, the petition lacked the necessary supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury required by WCAB Rule 10452.

Petition for disqualificationWCAB Rule 10844Verified pleadingsAffidavitDeclaration under penalty of perjuryWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeBiasMotion to disqualifyLabor Code section 5311WCJ Blais
References
Case No. ADJ8436843
Regular
Jun 15, 2015

KEITH VOELKER vs. G.S.E. CONSTRUCTION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant seeking to quash subpoenas duces tecum issued by the defendant. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal in part, quashing the subpoena for personal financial information from a golf course as irrelevant. However, the Board affirmed the denial of the motion to quash subpoenas for medical records, finding that the applicant placed his medical condition and its consequences in issue. The Board also clarified that an affidavit showing good cause is not required for a deposition subpoena seeking only business records for copying.

Subpoena Duces TecumPetition for RemovalMotion to QuashPhysician-Patient PrivilegePrivacy RightsCompensable ConsequencesApportionment of Permanent DisabilityCode of Civil ProcedureBusiness Records ExceptionGood Cause
References
Case No. ADJ7549203
Regular
Feb 22, 2018

RONALD WILSON vs. AEROTEK COMMERCIAL STAFFING; As Administered By ESIS CHATSWORTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB rescinded the previous order that denied the defendant's motion to set a trial date. The case is now returned to the workers' compensation administrative law judge for further proceedings. This means the previous denial of the trial setting motion is nullified.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJrescind ordermotion to set trial datereturn to trial leveladministrative law judgedefendant's motiondenial of motion
References
Case No. ADJ8718900
Regular
Jun 27, 2019

JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ RAYA vs. JOANNE RUIZ, dba J'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the judge's order that denied a motion to quash a deposition of defense counsel. The Board found that depositions of opposing counsel are disfavored and require a high standard of cause, which was not met. Furthermore, the judge denied the motion without a hearing or proper justification, violating due process. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for well-supported discovery requests given the age of the claim.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashDeposition of Defense CounselOpposing Counsel DepositionDisfavored DiscoveryIntoxication DefenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(4)Burden of ProofPanel QMEStipulation
References
Case No. ADJ9972033
Regular
Aug 18, 2015

BRIAN DEL ROSARIO vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., LIBERY INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's mootness order, and remanded the case for a decision on the merits of the employer's motion to quash. The employer argued that a subpoena duces tecum for ten years of employment records was overly broad and burdensome, and reconsideration later would not be adequate. The Board found the employer demonstrated substantial prejudice and irreparable harm due to the breadth of the request and a drafting error in the original motion. A dissenting opinion argued removal was inappropriate as the employer's error, not the WCJ's, created the issue, and the employer had an adequate remedy by refiling.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashMootnessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJAdministrative Law JudgeDiscovery Dispute
References
Case No. ADJ3724175 (LBO 0309160)
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

Trudy Rabb vs. FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES; Permissibly Self-Insured/FEDERATED CLAIMS SERVICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Minute Order denying a motion to quash a deposition is not a final order subject to reconsideration. The petition was also dismissed for failing to meet the statutory verification requirement. The Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no evidence of irreparable harm or significant prejudice that would justify this extraordinary remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMotion to QuashAgreed Medical ExaminerTemporary DisabilityUnverified PetitionFinal OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive Right
References
Case No. ADJ1 0092641
Regular
Mar 24, 2016

ALLA BRUSILOVSKYA vs. TARZANA TREATMENT CENTERS, ADMINSURE

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant sought removal after the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) denied the employer's motion to quash a subpoena. The WCJ's order directed the parties to engage in a good-faith meet and confer process to resolve the discovery dispute. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, concluding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision occurs.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashMeet and ConferDue ProcessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration
References
Showing 1-10 of 492 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