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. ADJ6794293
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

SHARON HIRONYMOUS vs. CENTRAL ANESTHESIA SERVICE, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order allowing a replacement QME panel. The Board granted removal, rescinded the order, and ruled the applicant was not entitled to a replacement QME. This decision was based on the applicant's failure to object to the QME's conduct during the examination itself, instead waiting until after reviewing the QME's report. Allowing a replacement panel under these circumstances was deemed prejudicial to the defendant.

QMEreplacement panelPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalindustrial injurycarpal tunnel syndromeAdministrative Law JudgeQualified Medical Evaluator Complaint FormTitle 8 California Code of Regulationsinterlocutory procedural order
References
Case No. ADJ4257489 (VNO 0545109) ADJ1819339 (VNO 0545111)
Regular
Apr 27, 2009

LUZ GALARZA vs. ADECCO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA IN CARE OF BROADSPIRE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their Petition for Removal. The defendant sought these actions after the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) continued the trial to await a Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (Panel QME) chiropractic report. The defendant argued prejudice and due process violations regarding a psychiatric evaluation, but the Board found no final order was issued and no substantial prejudice warranted removal. The Board affirmed the WCJ's interlocutory procedural order allowing discovery to continue and found no error in the continuation of the trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorChiropracticsPsychiatric EvaluationInterlocutory Procedural OrdersSubstantive Right or LiabilityExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ1544900 (STK 0209146)
Regular
Feb 19, 2009

DARRYL CAETANO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration as the issued order for further record development was procedural, not a final determination of rights or liabilities. The defendant's petition for removal was also denied because they failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as the WCJ properly found the existing medical evidence inadequate for determining injury to additional body parts. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's discretion in ordering supplemental reporting from the panel QME to develop the record. Therefore, the defendant's attempts to halt further investigation were unsuccessful.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and Award OrderUtility Craft WorkerCervical SpineLeft KneeLow BackRight WristMandatory Settlement Conference
References
Case No. ADJ4139911 (WCK 0055868) ADJ2615875 (WCK 0055867) ADJ1560333 (WCK 0039954) ADJ3261818 (WCK 0039953)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

ELENA ALMAZAN vs. GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, Adjusted By ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as interlocutory, finding the WCJ's rulings on evidence admissibility and further record development were not final orders. The WCAB also denied the Defendant's petition for removal, concluding no substantial prejudice or irreparable injury warranted the extraordinary remedy. The Board affirmed the WCJ's admission of certain lien claimant exhibits and the order for further development, deeming it necessary to resolve payment discrepancies and lien reasonableness. Therefore, the case will proceed for further proceedings before the WCJ to fully develop the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalInterlocutory OrdersAdmissibility of EvidenceLien ClaimantFurther Development of RecordAccuracy of DocumentsCourt Administrator Rule 10236Substantive Right
References
Case No. ADJ4599555 (SDO 0104928)
Regular
Mar 11, 2011

LARRY HAMILTON vs. TOYOTA OF POWAY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation, Administered By CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

This case concerns an applicant's petition for reconsideration and removal of an order reassigning his workers' compensation case to a specific judge. The applicant argued this reassignment violated due process and would cause delay. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, stating the reassignment order was not a final determination of substantive rights. They also denied removal, finding no prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant, and affirmed the Presiding WCJ's discretion in assigning the case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalOrder for ReassignmentAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityCompromise and ReleaseInterlocutory OrderSubstantive Right
References
Case No. ADJ2528253 [VNO 0109315] ADJ4079159 [VNO 0110903] ADJ1557998 [VNO 0100061] ADJ1727207 [VNO 0120684]
Regular
Sep 19, 2008

GORDON BERGELSON vs. SPORTSCOACH CORPORATION OF AMERICA, RSKCO

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant’s petition for reconsideration of the WCJ’s July 15, 2008 order relieving applicant’s counsel. The order relieving counsel is not a final order subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting Petition to Be Relieved as CounselWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeInterlocutory Procedural OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiability of PartiesAttorney-Client RelationshipSignificant Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ964975 [STK 0191335] ADJ2722796 [STK 0191750]
Regular
Sep 15, 2008

BOB ARUCAN vs. CITY OF STOCKTON, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By BRAGG and ASSOCIATES

Defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and Removal are dismissed. The June 30, 2008 decision that the record requires further development is not a final order subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalIndustrial InjuryCervical SpineBuilding InspectorAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityApportionmentFurther Development
References
Case No. ADJ1277521 (VNO 0546318)
Regular
Nov 04, 2008

FERNANDO SIXTO MACIAS vs. MAGIC CLEANERS & LAUNDRY, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's Minute Order taking the case off calendar was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final determination of substantive rights or liabilities. The WCAB also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying the extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's action was to ensure compliance with Labor Code section 4062.2 for proper medical evaluation, which aids in developing the record and reducing delays.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code section 4062.2industrial injurykneeslow backdue processinterlocutory ordersubstantive right
References
Case No. ADJ3562853 (VNO 0546829) ADJ3653443 (VNO 0546830)
Regular
Sep 07, 2010

JEREMY PEREZ vs. WILSONA SCHOOL DISTRICT, SELF-INSURED SCHOOLS OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was an interlocutory order, not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The original order required further record development to determine an alternate adjustment factor for diminished future earning capacity, as established by *Ogilvie* cases, and deferred the issue of apportionment. The Board reiterated that the party challenging the scheduled permanent disability rating bears the burden of proof.

DFECOgilvie IIBensonApportionmentReconsiderationRemovalInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable InjuryRAND data
References
Case No. ADJ3283011 (MON 0197163)
Regular
Aug 08, 2008

LINDA BECERRA vs. JACK'S BINDERY, UTICA NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying order quashing overbroad subpoenas was procedural and not a final determination of rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition as a request for removal, finding no irreparable harm and advising the defendant to redraft its subpoenas to specifically target records related to the applicant's industrial injury. The applicant's original injury occurred on September 1, 1993.

WCABFindings and OrderSubpoenas Duces TecumSDTsoverbroadquashedreconsiderationinterlocutory procedural orderssubstantive rightliability
References
Showing 1-10 of 633 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