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. ADJ8162345, ADJ7959552
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

MARIA CHAVEZ MARTINEZ vs. RESTAURANT LEADERSHIP GROUP, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

Lien claimants' petitions challenging a WCJ's order denying their ex parte petition and ordering depositions were dismissed. The Board found the initial petition for reconsideration untimely, as it was filed 21 days after personal service, and the order was not a final one. The second petition for removal was denied as the lien claimants failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and the WCJ's reasoning was sound.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalUntimely PetitionFinal OrderEx Parte PetitionWCJ OrderDiscovery BurdenJurisdictional Time Limit
References
6
Case No. ADJ7736993, ADJ8633868
Regular
Jul 29, 2016

HUGO IBARRA vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration of the Joint Findings and Award. The applicant's argument focused on alleged errors in the WCJ's Opinion on Decision regarding advances, not the Findings and Award itself. The Board clarified that reconsideration is only available for final orders determining substantive rights or liabilities. Since the Findings and Award did not address advances or offsets, and no final order on that issue exists, the petition was denied. Any dispute regarding advances must first be litigated at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityDisability IndemnityAttorney's FeesOpinion on DecisionAdvancesOffsetsTrial Level
References
3
Case No. ADJ2816754 (VNO 0432817) ADJ876300 (VNO 0432820)
Regular
Apr 10, 2009

MARIN RAMIREZ vs. ROYAL ROOF COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant's petition for removal to the Appeals Board, challenging an order that took the cases off calendar pending clarification of medical opinions on apportionment. The applicant argued the order violated due process and improperly shifted the burden of developing the record. The majority denied the petition, finding the orthopedic AME's report incomplete regarding apportionment, even though the applicant claimed it was consistent with precedent. A dissenting opinion argued the defendant had the opportunity to request apportionment percentages and failed to do so, thus waiving the issue.

Petition for RemovalApportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs)Benson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Due ProcessDevelop the RecordWCJLabor Code Section 4663Permanent DisabilitySubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. ADJ10488034
Regular
May 07, 2018

GILDO BEITIA vs. CITY OF OAKLAND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition for removal, upholding an administrative law judge's order that limited the defendant's subpoenas for medical records. The defendant argued this order denied due process and improperly restricted discovery into non-industrial conditions affecting the applicant's alleged injuries. The WCAB found the subpoenas were impermissibly overbroad under existing precedent, which limits discovery to matters directly relevant to the claimed injuries. A dissenting opinion argued the limitations were too restrictive, especially for conditions like weight gain and hypertension which can have numerous causes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashCompensable Consequence InjuriesDiscovery LimitationsPatient-Litigant ExceptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeOverbroad SubpoenaDue Process
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. ADJ4502386 (ANA 0329574)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

MARTINA GONZALEZ vs. ST. JOHN KNITS, INC., ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

The WCAB denied a petition for removal seeking to overturn an order denying a continuance of a lien conference. The defendant's new counsel requested the continuance due to the pending substitution of attorneys, but the WCJ denied it, citing the importance of court-set calendars. While the majority found no significant prejudice given the extended discovery period and flexibility at trial, a dissenting opinion argued the defendant was prejudiced by being denied a meaningful lien conference to resolve issues before trial.

Petition for RemovalSubstitution of AttorneyLien ConferenceContinuanceWCJ OrderFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityAdelson Testan Brundo JimenezLaughlin Falbo Levy Moresi
References
0
Case No. ADJ4634338 (MON 02262377) ADJ614711 (MON 0288710)
Regular
Dec 07, 2009

NINA GOODRICH vs. UNILAB/QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, AMERICAN CASUALTY CO. OF READING, PA, CNA CLAIMSPLUS, VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEMS, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT, ZURICH INSURANCE CO.

Zurich's petition for reconsideration of the June 24, 2009 Opinion and Order Granting Reconsideration and Decision After Reconsideration is denied for the reasons stated in prior opinions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNina GoodrichUnilab/Quest DiagnosticsSedgwick Claims Management ServicesAmerican Casualty Co.Valley Health SystemsTristar Risk ManagementZurich Insurance Co.Labor Code section 5500.5Arbitration Finding of Facts
References
6
Case No. SAC 257957
Regular
Jan 25, 2008

SUSAN FOUST vs. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Self Insured, Adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a dispute over authorization for spinal surgery. The defendant employer denied the applicant's treating physician's request for surgery based on utilization review and claimed the applicant's objection was untimely. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order compelling the parties to obtain a second opinion was interlocutory, not a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code section 4062Utilization ReviewSecond Opinion ReportOrthopedic SurgeonNeurosurgeonAnterior Cervical FusionStipulated Award
References
8
Case No. 02 MDL 1499, 02 Civ. 4712, 02 Civ. 6218, 03 Civ. 1024, 03 Civ. 4524
Regular Panel Decision

Ntsebeza v. Daimler AG

This Opinion & Order addresses the defendants' motion to certify for interlocutory appeal three key issues arising from a lawsuit filed by South Africans against multinational corporations for allegedly aiding and abetting torts during the apartheid era. The defendants sought certification on the application of case-specific deference, the mens rea standard for aiding and abetting under international law, and the vicarious liability standard for foreign subsidiaries. The court denied certification for case-specific deference, concluding it did not involve a controlling question of law, lacked substantial grounds for disagreement, and an appeal would not materially advance the litigation. While acknowledging substantial ground for disagreement on the mens rea issue, the court still denied certification, asserting an immediate appeal would not expedite the litigation's termination. Finally, certification for the vicarious liability standard was denied, as the court found no substantial ground for difference of opinion. Consequently, the defendants' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal and a request for a stay of proceedings were entirely denied.

Interlocutory AppealAlien Tort Claims ActAiding and AbettingCustomary International LawSouth African ApartheidMultinational CorporationsCase-Specific DeferencePolitical Question DoctrineInternational ComityMens Rea
References
19
Case No. ADJ3858007 (SBR 0314079)
Regular
May 26, 2016

RONALD STEFFY vs. H STREET COLLISION CENTER, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal of an Order Vacating Submission. The judge vacated submission to further develop the record due to insufficient evidence, finding the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinions unpersuasive after reviewing medical records and sub rosa video evidence. The Board found the order did not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as it allows for a complete adjudication of issues, including medication usage and permanent disability. Further medical-legal examinations were ordered to develop a record capable of supporting findings on impairment and causation.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)McDuffieLabor Code section 5701sub rosa videoinsubstantial evidencepermanent disabilitycausationvocational rehabilitation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 32,365 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