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. 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. LAO 862841
Regular
Feb 28, 2008

BAHATI H. SALAS vs. LIVHOME, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and quashed the applicant's notice for a second deposition of Dr. Peterson. The Board found no good cause for a second deposition, as the applicant's representative was present at the first and failed to question Dr. Peterson on relevant matters despite having all necessary documentation. Allowing repeated depositions without changed circumstances would be neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contradicting the Board's mandate.

RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Due ProcessGood CauseCredibilitySubsequent DepositionLabor Code 4062.3Substantial Justice
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ7621876
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

DAVID ESPINOZA RODRIGUEZ vs. WEST COAST PAINTING, INC., CNA CLAIMS SERVICES

This case concerns defendant West Coast Painting's petition to remove an order quashing their Notice of Deposition for applicant David Espinoza Rodriguez. The defendant argued the quashing occurred in a non-noticed walk-through and asserted new circumstances, including potential back surgery and treatment outside the MPN. However, the Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for a subsequent deposition and that no irreparable harm would result from denying it. The denial is consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610, which generally limits parties to one deposition per deponent without good cause shown.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQuashed DepositionSubsequent DepositionGood CauseSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ ReportMedical Provider NetworkBack Surgery
References
Case No. ADJ2203036 (SAC 0198508) ADJ4156707 (SAC 0224575)
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

SANDI ODA vs. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns a dispute over the deposition of Dr. Michael Kasman, who began an evaluation of the applicant but never completed it. The applicant sought to quash the deposition notice, citing due process, privacy, attorney work product, and the fact that Dr. Kasman was withdrawn as their expert. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal solely to limit the scope of the deposition. The Board amended the discovery order to clarify that Dr. Kasman can only be deposed as a percipient witness regarding his attempted examination, not as a medical expert.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalInterim Discovery OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceMotion to QuashDepositionQualified Medical EvaluatorAttorney Work Product PrivilegePercipient WitnessCumulative Injury
References
Case No. ADJ3213121 (LBO 0361407)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

GLENDA M. BRUCE vs. COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that quashed the applicant's deposition. The applicant amended her claim to include hair loss and a fall after her last deposition. The Board found good cause for an additional deposition, as the defendant did not have notice of these new claims prior to the previous depositions. Therefore, the applicant is required to submit to a fifth deposition specifically addressing the hair loss and fall allegations.

Petition for RemovalQuashed DepositionCompensable ConsequencesAmended ApplicationIndustrial InjuryHair LossFallPrior NoticeFifth DepositionRescinded Order
References
Case No. ADJ7046175
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

, DAVID WILKIE, vs. , CHATEAU HOTEL, and FIRSTCOMP OMAHA for SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY,

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal to the Appeals Board, challenging a WCJ's denial of his petition to quash depositions. The applicant argued improper notice and service of deposition subpoenas, but the WCJ admitted the depositions solely for the purpose of determining timely notice, not for substantive evidence. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition because the applicant had not yet suffered prejudice or irreparable harm, as the depositions had not been used for substantive purposes and he could raise objections later if aggrieved.

Petition for RemovalQuash DepositionsCode of Civil ProcedureCCP section 2025.270Proper NoticeProof of ServiceIndustrial InjuryLeft Upper ExtremityFindings and OrderWCAB Rule 10843
References
Case No. ADJ9813773
Regular
Apr 04, 2019

Christina Eastland vs. Orange County Transportation Authority

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal to the defendant, Orange County Transportation Authority. This decision rescinded a prior Minute Order that compelled depositions over the defendant's objection. The Board found the Minute Order violated the defendant's due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice that employee witness depositions, rather than QME depositions, would be addressed. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for proper notice and an evidentiary hearing.

Petition for RemovalDue ProcessMinute OrderWCJEmployee Witness DepositionsDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedStatus ConferenceObjection and Motion to QuashProtective OrderOrder to Quash
References
Case No. ADJ9924983 ADJ9925009
Regular
Feb 26, 2019

JESUS RODRIGUEZ GARCIA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The Board found that the order quashing the second deposition of Dr. Aun was a discovery order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. Defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or substantial prejudice required for removal, as they could still petition the court to reevaluate the need for the depositions. The Board also found no violation of due process, as defendant had an opportunity to present their arguments to the judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalProtective OrderQuash DepositionDue ProcessIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceMedical EvidenceDeposition Leave
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,129 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