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. ADJ1603747 (LBO 0364640) ADJ6857559
Regular
Mar 24, 2010

ROSARIO ESPINOZA vs. RECHE CANYON CONVALESCENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration/removal. The defendant argued they were denied due process by an administrative order compelling document production, as they claimed never to have received the underlying motion and lacked opportunity to respond. However, the WCAB found the petition moot because the disputed lien claim was subsequently resolved by stipulation and order. The WCAB also noted the defendant's petition was filed the day before a hearing where the issue could have been rectified, and questioned why the defendant didn't withdraw the petition after the resolution.

Order Compelling Production of DocumentsPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removallien claimantMotion to Compeldue processmootStipulation and Order to Pay Lien ClaimantWCAB
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. 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 The WCAB rescinded the previous order that denied the defendant's motion to set a trial date.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. ADJ9950392
Regular
Sep 29, 2017

MARGARET NADEY vs. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal, rescinding the trial judge's order that denied the employer's motion to compel disclosure of prior permanent disabilities. The Board found that Labor Code section 4663(d) mandates an employee disclose such information upon request. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the specifics of this disclosure.

RemovalPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 4663(d)Prior Permanent DisabilitiesDisclosureMotion to CompelWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJApplicantDefendant
References
Case No. ADJ8723834
Regular
Aug 08, 2013

DAVID LIPARI vs. BENNETT MOTOR EXPRESS, LLC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

The Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's discovery order was not a final decision. However, the Board granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order compelling discovery. This action was taken to ensure the defendant had proper due process, as they claimed insufficient notice of the discovery motion and insufficient time to respond. The Board also noted that the disputed employment status impacts the relevance of the requested documents, suggesting a priority conference on employment should be held first.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDiscovery OrderSubpoena Duces TecumDue ProcessIndependent ContractorSubstitution of AttorneysMotion to CompelMedical Provider Network
References
Case No. LAO 0863476
Regular
Jul 31, 2007

MARIA ANA PAREDES (Deceased) CARLOS ALFREDO ALVAREZ vs. ANDROMEDA ENTERTAINMENT INC., dba CLUB GALAXY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the judge's denial of a motion to compel, and ordered the applicant to answer deposition questions. The Board found that the applicant's attorney improperly instructed the applicant not to answer questions regarding financial support in El Salvador and employment history, as such questions were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under liberal discovery rules. The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it reviewed a non-final interlocutory order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMotion to CompelDeposition QuestionsIndustrial InjuryCerebellar HemorrhageWidowerGuardian ad LitemDiscovery Rules
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. ADJ9614872
Regular
Nov 30, 2015

BRUNO SALAMA vs. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Uber's Petition for Removal challenging the denial of their motion to compel the applicant driver's tax returns. The applicant sustained an industrial injury and claimed benefits, with Uber contesting his worker classification. The WCAB found that the tax privilege protects income tax returns and is not automatically waived by filing a workers' compensation claim. Furthermore, Uber failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm as alternative discovery methods exist to obtain relevant information regarding the applicant's income and expenses.

Petition for RemovalMotion to CompelTax ReturnsTax PrivilegeIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationBorello FactorsIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceWCAB
References
Case No. ADJ4242717 (VNO 0420852) ADJ7278860
Regular
Sep 28, 2016

PHILLIP WILLIAMS vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION - CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding a WCJ's order compelling former attorney John Ferrone to attend trial as a witness. The Board found that the only subpoena issued for Ferrone was to attend a trial date that had long passed, was not personally served, and had potentially been withdrawn. Compelling a witness's attendance requires a valid subpoena, and no such valid subpoena existed for the current trial date.

Petition for RemovalAttorney-Client PrivilegeSubpoenaWCJ OrderFraud or MistakeStipulation and OrderMotion to QuashAttorney as WitnessCompelled AttendancePercipient Witness
References
Case No. ADJ4595703 (LBO 0379028)
Regular
Jun 08, 2012

Carlos Penaloza vs. TMP SERVICES, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to find defendant liable for sanctions due to its repeated failure to serve medical reports on the lien claimant as required by WCAB Rule 10608. This failure, despite multiple requests and two judicial orders, constituted sanctionable conduct for causing unnecessary delay and was not excused by inadvertence. The case is remanded to the trial level for determination of the lien claimant's reasonable expenses and any additional sanction up to $2,500.

WCAB Rule 10608Lien claimantSanctionsFrivolous litigationBad faithMedical reportsService of documentsDiscovery orderMotion to compelCompel production
References
Showing 1-10 of 725 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