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. ADJ3604849 (VNO 0545037)
Regular
Aug 17, 2009

TOMAS ARAMBULA vs. TODD RUTKIN, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed petitions for reconsideration filed by Tami Navon and Ira Reinherz, D.C., finding the challenged orders compelling deposition attendance were interlocutory. The WCAB denied Reinherz's petition for removal, stating he failed to demonstrate prejudice from being compelled to attend his deposition as a lien claimant. However, the WCAB granted Navon's petition for removal, rescinding the order compelling her deposition as she is not a party or lien claimant and required proper subpoena service.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationPetitionDepositionCompel AttendanceLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive Right
References
7
Case No. ADJ10395296, ADJ10401675
Regular
Feb 06, 2017

KATHRYN KIRCHER vs. CIRCULATING AIR, INC., YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal regarding an order compelling her attendance and her attorney's deposition testimony. The Board treated the Petition for Removal as a timely objection demonstrating good cause for the applicant's inability to attend due to hospitalization. Consequently, the original order compelling deposition was deemed void by operation of law. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot because there was no outstanding order to challenge.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJGood CauseVoid OrderMootMedical ConditionObjectionExtraordinary Remedy
References
2
Case No. ADJ1992708 (SBR 0111164)
Regular
Apr 15, 2009

BETTY MILLER vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration and denied her petition for removal. The applicant sought to overturn an order compelling her attendance at a deposition, arguing no good cause was shown and that the defendant had sufficient medical information. The WCAB ruled that the order compelling attendance was not a final order and therefore not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal, upholding the original order.

WCABReconsiderationRemovalDepositionInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityGood CauseContribution Rights
References
9
Case No. ADJ4067591 (VNO 0551402) ADJ4308603 (VNO 0559555)
Regular
Apr 12, 2011

MARIA BARAJAS vs. CONCERTO, INC., dba CITRON SPA, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves Dr. Herbert Marshak's petition for removal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order compelling his deposition. The Board denied the petition, deeming removal an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. Marshak's claims that he was not a proper party to the deposition and that his due process rights were violated were rejected. The Board found his deposition had commenced and was continued, and he failed to object to the order compelling his attendance.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDepositionNotice to ProduceJewish SabbathDue ProcessCompelling AttendanceSanctionsContempt Proceedings
References
2
Case No. ADJ9837582, ADJ9835957
Regular
Jul 09, 2015

SANTOS GUZMAN vs. MAIN IMPERIAL, LLC, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Applicant's petition for removal of a WCJ's Order to Compel attendance at a deposition. The Board denied removal, finding Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Order to Compel was properly obtained via a walk-through procedure, not an improper ex parte communication. Furthermore, Applicant provided no valid reason for objecting to the continued deposition, especially after prior agreement and the alleged factual inaccuracy of his objection regarding deposition transcripts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder to Compel AttendanceDepositionAdministrative Law JudgeWCJCumulative Trauma InjurySpecific InjuryDue ProcessEx Parte
References
2
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
12
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
7
Case No. ADJ3365645 (LAO 0885532) ADJ1587350 (LAO 0885533) ADJ564621 (LAO 0885534) ADJ7271674
Regular
Jun 24, 2011

RICARDO MUNOZ PADILLA vs. CISCO BROTHERS, INC. (A CORP), REDWOOD FIRD AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order compelling attendance at a deposition was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding that the applicant was denied due process by not having an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. The WCAB rescinded the original order and returned the matter to the trial level for reconsideration of the deposition issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompel DepositionAdministrative Law JudgeDue ProcessLabor Code Section 5900(a)Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.420(b)Protective OrderGood Cause
References
0
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. ADJ8241877
Regular
May 02, 2014

CONNA NICHOLS, DONNA NICHOLS, DONNA M. NICHOLS vs. EARLY LEARNING INSTITUTE, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY CO.

This case concerns a Petition for Removal denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The applicant, Donna Nichols, sought removal of an order compelling her deposition, alleging defects and medical inability to attend. The WCAB adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report, which found the petition lacked merit. The WCJ reasoned that the deposition order was not a "walk-through" petition and that the applicant's medical evidence was insufficient to justify further delay.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code section 5313Smales v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ADJ8241877depositionPetition to Compel Attendance at DepositionDeclaration of Readiness to Proceedwalk-through petition
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 24,641 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