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. ADJ11377839 ADJ11377840
Regular
Jul 09, 2019

OLIVIA BARAJAS vs. JUSTIN VINEYARDS & WINERY, LLC, BROADSPIRE

The applicant sought reconsideration or removal of an order compelling her attendance at a deposition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely and denied the petition for removal. The WCAB found the order compelling attendance was an interlocutory discovery order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for the extraordinary remedy of removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceDepositionWCJDiscovery OrderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ 6962762, ADJ4127525 (SBR 0330147), ADJ9551358
Regular
Feb 19, 2016

HARMEET KAUR vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

The applicant filed two petitions challenging orders compelling attendance at a deposition and a PQME. The Appeals Board dismissed the first petition as it sought reconsideration of a non-final order. The Board then granted removal on the second petition, setting aside the order compelling the PQME attendance due to potential prejudice from an alleged agreed medical evaluation. Reconsideration was denied for both petitions as they addressed interlocutory matters.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionOrder Compelling PQMEWCJAgreed Medical Evaluation (AME)Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderRule 10859
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issued for Ferrone was to attend a trial date that had long passed, was not personally served, and had potentially been withdrawn.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. ADJ1332416 (WCK 0031685) ADJ3521523 (OAK 0322592) ADJ4017994 (WCK 0029276)
Regular
Nov 19, 2015

PAMELA ZEILSTRA vs. TARGET STORES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order setting a mandatory settlement conference and deferring the request to set aside a prior order compelling medical examination attendance. The Board found that the issue of setting aside the two-year-old compelling order must be resolved before a settlement conference. Applicant must comply with the order or show good cause for setting it aside, and defendant may seek an order under Labor Code section 4053. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, starting with a status conference.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJDiscoverySet Aside OrderLabor Code section 4053Rescind OrderTrial Level
References
Case No. ADJ13061844
Regular
Dec 28, 2020

RON PETTWAY vs. TRILLIUM STAFFING SOLUTIONS, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding a prior order that denied the defendant's request to compel the applicant's attendance at an in-person medical evaluation. The WCAB found that the administrative law judge improperly denied the petition solely due to the Shelter in Place Order. The Board clarified that emergency regulations permit medical-legal evaluations during the state of emergency and returned the matter to the trial level to determine if the evaluation could proceed under these regulations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMedical Legal EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorShelter in Place OrderLabor CodeCompel AttendanceRescind OrderReturn to Trial LevelTelehealth
References
Case No. ADJ10832179
Regular
Jun 08, 2018

ELIZABETH OLIVAS MONTOYA vs. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of an order compelling her deposition. However, the Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the deposition order, and returned the matter to the trial level. This decision was based on the applicant's inability to drive due to injury and subsequent complications with her attorney's health, coupled with the procedural issue of not allowing the applicant an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. The Board hopes the parties can resolve the deposition dispute amicably at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling Attendance at DepositionWCJCumulative TraumaInstructional AssistantPetition to Compel DepositionOpportunity to be heardKnee Injury
References
Case No. ADJ11155531
Regular
Apr 01, 2020

PATRICK ALLEN vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for removal, rescinded an order compelling attendance at a medical examination, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the order violated due process because the applicant did not receive prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. The WCJ issued the order as a "walk-through document" without adhering to the required notice of intention procedure. The Board emphasized that due process requires notice and an opportunity to challenge adverse actions before they are issued.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to be HeardPetition to Compel AttendanceAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Walk-through documentWCAB Rule 10789(h)
References
Case No. ADJ7096387; ADJ7096382
Regular
Feb 23, 2012

CHRISTOPHER LEEN vs. CHART HOUSE ENTERPRISES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and rescinded an order compelling the applicant's attendance at a medical evaluation. The applicant argued they were denied due process because the judge issued the order compelling attendance and suspending proceedings just one day after the applicant received the defendant's petition, without a hearing or proper notice. The Board agreed that the rapid issuance of the order violated due process rights, particularly as it suspended the applicant's ability to proceed with their case. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, allowing the applicant an opportunity to be heard.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceMedical EvaluationAgreed Medical EvaluatorDue ProcessPetition to CompelNotice of IntentionWalk-through PetitionAppeals Board Rule
References
Case No. ADJ8743098
Regular
Feb 07, 2017

REGULO HERNANDEZ AGUILAR vs. PRIMA PIZZA d/b/a DOMINOS PIZZA, HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

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 order compelling the deposition of their claims adjuster, arguing it was intended to harass. However, the WCAB found the order was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required for removal.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ Orderdepositionclaims adjusterPetition to QuashPetition to Compelfinal orderinterlocutory order
References
Case No. ADJ9274305
Regular
Dec 15, 2014

SALVADOR REYES vs. AVP&H A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Salvador Reyes's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot, as the underlying issue regarding a specific Qualified Medical Examiner appeared to be resolved. Both petitions were denied as they did not address substantive rights or liabilities. The order reflects standard practice for non-final and moot petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityMootnessQMEOrder to CompelMeet and Confer
References
Showing 1-10 of 8,719 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