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. ADJ9155937
Regular
Dec 16, 2016

SYLVIA MC GILVARY vs. SAN DIEGUITO PRINTERS, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal. The defendant argued that the case should have proceeded to trial, not a priority conference, because the applicant did not object to the declaration of readiness. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order, returning the matter for a mandatory settlement conference. This will allow the applicant's attorney to present evidence regarding the objection to the declaration of readiness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMinute OrderMandatory Settlement ConferencePriority ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWCJApplicantDefendantEAMS ADJ file
References
0
Case No. ADJ7622132
Regular
May 10, 2011

MARIA SOLORIO DE VILLA vs. RADISSON PLAZA dba LA QUINTA, COMP WEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal. The Board ordered the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) off calendar to allow for the deposition of the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The applicant had previously objected to the defendant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed due to outstanding discovery. The Board found that scheduling the MSC over the applicant's objection was improper given the incomplete discovery.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorQME DepositionDiscovery ObjectionsOff CalendarJudicial EconomyFairnessElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
0
Case No. ADJ9365403 ADJ9365409
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

MELVIN PITTS vs. UNITED AIRLINES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal of a WCJ's order that removed the case from the calendar over the applicant's objection. The applicant argued prejudice due to being ready for trial and not receiving benefits. However, the Board found the petition moot because the applicant subsequently filed a Declaration of Readiness and the case is now set for another Mandatory Settlement Conference. Therefore, the Board dismissed the petition for removal as moot.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceOff CalendarAgreed Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMootDismissedWCJEAMS
References
0
Case No. ADJ4266411 (VNO 0551612)
Regular
Feb 02, 2015

HELEN STROEHLEN vs. MACY'S WEST, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award denying applicant's claim for new and further disability. The Board found no merit in the applicant's contentions regarding the prior proceedings but noted a discrepancy in the record regarding objections to the Declaration of Readiness to Proceed. Consequently, the Board issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions up to $1,000 against applicant's counsel for potentially frivolous actions, pending a final decision after allowing for a written objection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderQualified Medical ExaminerDeclaration of ReadinessPetition for New and Further DisabilityBad Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsLabor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561
References
0
Case No. ADJ7071120
Regular
Jul 07, 2010

CARRIE JOHNSON vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Defendant Federal Express sought removal of an order allowing applicant further discovery beyond the mandatory settlement conference (MSC). The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the applicant lacked due diligence in pursuing discovery before the MSC. Applicant's failure to object to the defendant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed further waived any objections to proceeding on the existing record. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the MSC order and returned the case to the trial level with discovery closed.

Petition for removalMandatory settlement conferenceOrder off calendarDue diligenceQualified Medical EvaluatorDiscovery closureDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWaiver of objectionsPermanent disabilityIndustrial injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ4609386 (AHM 0124161)
Regular
Jun 29, 2011

FRANCISCO CERVANTES vs. STAFFMARK INVESTMENTS, AIG CLAIM SERVICES, INC., as administered by CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

This case involves a defendant's Petition for Removal challenging a WCJ's order to proceed to trial. The defendant argued the matter was not ready due to insufficient medical evidence, but failed to object to the applicant's declaration of readiness to proceed. Furthermore, the defendant did not demonstrate efforts to supplement the existing medical reports. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that further medical record development is possible post-submission.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical EvidenceWCJ OrderSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
3
Case No. ADJ7620210
Regular
Feb 02, 2012

MATTHEW BROWN vs. PENINSULA PONTIAC AUTOMOBILE, AM TRUST NORTH AMERICA, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant insurance company sought removal of an order setting a workers' compensation case for trial, arguing insufficient discovery. The Board denied the petition, finding the defendant waived objections by failing to object to two prior Declarations of Readiness. The Board also noted the defendant's lack of diligence in obtaining requested discovery and the absence of extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay. The order allowing the trial judge discretion for limited medical evidence was upheld.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical ExaminerDiscoveryMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessObjectionTrialDepositionTemporary Total DisabilityDue Diligence
References
7
Case No. ADJ3792067 (SAL 0069777)
Regular
Dec 10, 2010

JANE GILBERT vs. BORDERLINE FAMILY RESTAURANT, MID CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The defendant sought to overturn an administrative law judge's order that sustained the applicant's objection to the defendant's declaration of readiness and sent the case off-calendar for further discovery. The WCAB found that the judge's order was not a final order, precluding reconsideration. Furthermore, removal was denied as the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and procedural defects in the applicant's objection were timely cured.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationDeclaration of ReadinessObjectionCase Off CalendarFurther DiscoveryPenalty of PerjuryFinal OrderSubstantive RightsExtraordinary Remedy
References
13
Case No. ADJ2817273
Regular
Sep 13, 2011

MAURITA STATEN vs. SELIGMAN WESTERN ENTERPRISES, dba ELLINGTON APARTMENTS

This case involves a deceased applicant's widow claiming a violation of Labor Code § 132a due to wrongful discharge after an industrial injury. The defendant employer filed a Petition for Removal, arguing the case wasn't ready for trial due to incomplete discovery and lack of service of medical reports. The Appeals Board granted the removal, finding the defendant was not properly notified of the applicant's Declaration of Readiness to Proceed. Consequently, the scheduled trial was redesignated as a Mandatory Settlement Conference to address the defendant's objections and discovery issues.

Petition for RemovalLabor Code § 132aWrongful DischargeMandatary Settlement ConferenceCompromise and ReleaseDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedEAMSWCJIndustrial InjurySpine Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ6486950; ADJ6490670
Regular
Nov 25, 2013

JORGE UBEDA vs. VERTIS COMMUNICATIONS, BROADSPIRE/CIGA

This case concerns Applicant Jorge Ubeda's Petition for Removal, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who found that while the objection to the Declaration of Readiness to Proceed might have been late, Applicant did not demonstrate prejudice. The key dispute centers on Applicant's refusal to provide a social security release for medical records, which the ALJ deemed a valid discovery issue that should be addressed before other benefit issues. The ALJ reasoned that Applicant's failure to respond to multiple requests for the release, rather than making a substantive objection, prevented Defendants from initiating formal action sooner.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedSocial Security ReleaseMedical RecordsObjection to DORAOE/COEContinuous TraumaDiscoveryMSC
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,342 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