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. ADJ7669691
Regular
Aug 02, 2012

Ellis Hobbs vs. New England Patriots, Philadelphia Eagles, Great Divine Insurance Company c/o Berkley Specialty Underwriting Managers

Great Divide Insurance Company (GDIC) sought to change venue from Anaheim to San Francisco for a workers' compensation claim filed by applicant Ellis Hobbs. Hobbs initially chose Anaheim as the venue based on his attorney's principal place of business. GDIC timely objected to this venue selection, as permitted by Labor Code section 5501.5(c). Because Hobbs does not reside in California and his last injurious exposure occurred in San Francisco, the Appeals Board granted GDIC's Petition for Removal and ordered the venue changed to the San Francisco district office.

Petition for RemovalVenueLabor Code section 5501.5Principal place of businessObjection to Venue SelectionLast alleged injurious exposureSan Francisco district officeAnaheim district officeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition to Change Venue
References
Case No. ADJ6960749
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

AMALIA AGUILAR vs. PETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL, ST, JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM, THE HARTFORD, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a dispute over venue. The defendant timely objected to the applicant's initial filing venue, which was the attorney's principal place of business. The law mandates that if venue is based on the attorney's location and an objection is raised, venue must then be established in the county of the employee's residence or the injury site. Since the applicant resides in and was injured in Sonoma County, the Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal. The Board rescinded a prior order that had set aside a change of venue and formally transferred the case to the Santa Rosa district office.

EAMSPetition for RemovalOrder Setting Aside Order of Change of VenueWCJPWCJDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedObjection to VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5WCAB Rule 10410Timeliness of Objection
References
Case No. LBO 0359639
Regular
Aug 28, 2007

TOMAS GARCIA vs. A. TEICHERT & SON, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed A. Teichert & Son's petition for removal as untimely. The petition was filed 62 days after the Notice of Hearing, exceeding the 20-day limit for removal petitions. Even if considered on its merits, the employer waived any venue objections by failing to object within the statutory 30-day period after receiving notice of the case.

Petition for RemovalAsbestos CalendarLabor Code Section 5500.5VenueApplicant's AttorneyWCAB Rule 10843(b)Untimely PetitionOrder Joining Party DefendantVenue ObjectionLabor Code Section 5501.5(a)(3)
References
Case No. LBO 0328398
Regular
Aug 28, 2007

WILLIAM PITTS vs. A. TEICHERT \& SON, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the employer's petition for removal as untimely, as it was filed more than 20 days after the notice of hearing. Furthermore, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits because the employer failed to object to venue within the statutory 30-day period after receiving notice of the case. The employer also did not demonstrate good cause for a change of venue or inconvenience of witnesses.

Petition for RemovalAsbestos CalendarVenueLabor Code Section 5500.5Class Action CertificationApplicant ResidenceInjurious ExposureVenue ObjectionWCAB Rule 10843(b)Untimely Petition
References
Case No. ADJ7641403
Regular
Apr 26, 2011

MARU ARAGAW vs. SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

Applicant Maru Aragaw sought to remove an order changing venue from San Francisco to Stockton for her workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition. The defendant's objection to the initial San Francisco venue was timely, as it was filed within 30 days of receiving notice of the case number and venue. Therefore, the WCJ correctly ordered the venue changed to Stockton, where the applicant resides.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.6WCJSan Francisco district officeStockton district officeApplication for Adjudication of Claimvenue siteobjection to venueRule 10410
References
Case No. ADJ1021405
Regular
Sep 12, 2008

FRANCISCO RAMIREZ vs. SOUTHLAND PIPE CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB denied defendant's petition for reconsideration of the Order Denying Change of Venue, finding that the defendant's objection to venue was untimely and waived.

Venue selectionObjection to venueTimeliness of objectionRule 10410Waiver of rightLabor Code section 5501.5(a)(3)Administrative law judgeReconsideration denialMandatory settlement conferenceFinal order
References
Case No. ADJ8682322
Regular
Jun 26, 2013

MARILYN VIELMA vs. BAKERSFIELD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DIGNITY HEALTH c/o SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant hospital's petition for removal, reversing an earlier denial of their venue change request. The defendant argued their objection to the Marina Del Rey venue was timely filed within 30 days of receiving the adjudication case number and venue notice. The Board found the objection was indeed filed on the 30th day after the defendant's claims administrator received notice. Consequently, venue was changed to the Bakersfield district office, as required by statute when an objection is timely.

Petition for RemovalPetition for Change of Venueuntimelythirtieth dayNotice of ApplicationvenueCNA techindustrial injuryApplication for Adjudication of ClaimLabor Code section 5501.5
References
Case No. ADJ2786973
Regular
Oct 07, 2009

RTHUR B. DAVIS vs. CENTINELA STATE PRISON

The Appeals Board granted Applicant’s petition for removal, rescinding the order that changed venue from Marina Del Rey to San Diego. The defendant’s objection to venue was untimely.

Petition for RemovalOrder Granting Change of VenueWCAB Rule 10410WCAB Rule 10843(a)Labor Code section 5501(a)(3)Labor Code section 5501.5(c)Venue ObjectionTimeliness of ObjectionProof of ServiceRescinded Order
References
Case No. ADJ11509125, ADJ11509591, ADJ13194436
Regular
Dec 15, 2020

ALEX MEJIA vs. LINEAGE LOGISTICS, CORVEL

The Appeals Board granted Lineage Logistics' petition for removal, rescinding an order that changed venue for claim ADJ13194436 to Long Beach. The Board found the record procedurally confused, noting conflicting actions by different district offices and an order that incorrectly stated parties jointly agreed to the venue change despite an objection. The matter is returned to the trial level to address consolidation and proper venue for all three applicant claims.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueConsolidation of ClaimsProcedural ConfusionAdjudication NumbersDistrict OfficeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaPetition to ConsolidateNotice of Intention to Change Venue
References
Case No. ADJ8462881
Regular
Dec 07, 2012

CHRIS HARMAN vs. SIERRA PACIFIC INDUSTRIES

This case involves a defendant's Petition for Removal requesting a venue change and vacation of a hearing. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as moot because the venue was subsequently changed by an Order Changing Venue. The Board also found the petition to be an abuse of removal procedure, as the defendant's venue objection had not been decided prior to the hearing being scheduled. The Board warned counsel against future frivolous filings, citing potential sanctions under Labor Code section 5813.

Petition for RemovalVenueLabor Code section 5501.5Objection to VenueDeclaration of ReadinessOrder Changing VenueMootWCAB Rule 10843(a)Abuse of ProcedureBad-faith Action
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,378 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