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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vodopia v. Rider

The court reviewed an order granting the examination of defendant Joseph Flynn before trial. The order was modified in two key areas. Firstly, item (b) of the first ordering paragraph was amended to specify the defendants' actions related to removing the plaintiff's employees from work on contracts around May 18, 1936, and the subsequent refusal to allow union members to continue work. Secondly, the second ordering paragraph was modified to direct Joseph Flynn to produce all relevant records, minute books, and documents pertaining to the removal of workmen or work suspension on plaintiff's contracts in May 1936 at the Coney Island Sewage Treatment Plant, and any acts preventing union employment. As modified, the order was affirmed without costs by Justices Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston, and Close.

Examination Before TrialPre-trial DiscoveryOrder ModificationAffirmed OrderLabor DisputeEmployee RemovalWork StoppageRecord ProductionUnion EmploymentContract Disputes
References
0
Case No. ADJ7719607
Regular
Jul 27, 2012

STEVE WEDDLE vs. CITY OF PASADENA

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the judge's order to take the case off calendar. The applicant's attorney declared readiness for trial and completed discovery, then unsuccessfully sought to continue the trial to develop the record. The Board found the judge abused discretion by ordering further discovery without trial or evidence submission. The case is returned for trial, with the judge retaining discretion to order record development post-trial if necessary.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDiscovery ClosureMedical Record DevelopmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorMcDuffie v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit AuthorityWCJ DiscretionTrial Readiness
References
1
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
7
Case No. ADJ736188 (GOL 0099658)
Regular
Sep 22, 2017

Deanna Power vs. St. John's Regional Medical Center, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns Deanna Power's claim for continued medical treatment, specifically prescription medications Xyrem and Lunesta, for a previous industrial injury. The employer denied authorization for these medications through Utilization Review (UR), and the applicant's subsequent Independent Medical Review (IMR) application was deemed untimely. The trial judge initially ordered continued treatment and directed the Administrative Director to process the IMR appeal, finding it timely. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to order treatment when a timely UR decision was issued and the applicant's sole recourse was the IMR process. The matter was returned to the trial level for a determination solely on the timeliness of the IMR appeal, not the medical necessity of the medications.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardXyremLunestaIndependent Medical ReviewIMRUtilization ReviewURprescription medications
References
3
Case No. ADJ9310265, ADJ9563677, ADJ9805680
Regular
Dec 07, 2015

ADAM SENF vs. CITY OF VACAVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order closing discovery and setting a trial date was not a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, especially given the extensive delays already caused by the defendant. The Board noted the defendant's pattern of seeking continuances and cautioned their attorney regarding potential sanctions for delaying tactics. Ultimately, the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision to move the case towards trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Closing DiscoverySetting for TrialWCJFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderLabor Code section 5502(d)(1)Declaration of Readiness
References
4
Case No. ADJ6762403
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

THEODORE PERLL vs. CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, ULICO CASUALTY COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, upholding the WCJ's order to continue the case to trial. The applicant sought to rescind the trial date, arguing that an MRI of his knee, ordered by his treating physician, might reveal the need for further surgery and that proceeding to trial would prevent him from presenting current medical information. The Board found that by the trial date, the applicant would have the MRI results and any resulting surgical recommendations, allowing the trial judge to assess whether to proceed. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, making reconsideration an adequate remedy.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceTemporary Disability BenefitsPermanent and StationaryFurther SurgeryIndustrial InjuryWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Case No. ADJ8061042
Regular
Feb 27, 2013

GREGORY GROVER vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the County of Sacramento challenging a WCJ's order continuing a trial date. The defendant argued that discovery remained incomplete and questioned the substantiality of a QME's report. However, the parties subsequently agreed to continue the trial to a new date. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as moot because the issues raised were rendered irrelevant by the new trial scheduling. The Board clarified that any discovery or evidentiary disputes should be addressed at the trial level.

Petition for RemovalWCJQMEorthopedic surgerysubstantial medical evidencemootdiscoveryDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedcontinuanceAppeals Board
References
1
Case No. ADJ2858126 (LAO 0805680)
Regular
Aug 25, 2011

APOLONIA CORRALES vs. SILGAN PLASTICS CORP., GALLAGHER BASSETT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a Petition for Removal filed by lien claimant David Silver, M.D., challenging an order to continue a matter to lien trial for further record development. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding Dr. Silver was not aggrieved by the June 8, 2011, order as it did not order record development. Furthermore, the Board found Dr. Silver failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for removal regarding the continuance. The petition was also dismissed as untimely and waived concerning a prior rescission order for which Dr. Silver had previously withdrawn a removal petition.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ OrderFurther Development of RecordDue ProcessExigencyWCAB Rule 10843(a)Aggrieved PartyIrreparable Harm
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2004

Zenteno v. Geils

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial calendar and for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for delay, citing extensive medical evaluations and difficulties obtaining authorization from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The court also determined that the defendants were not prejudiced by the restoration. Furthermore, an alleged agreement to proceed to arbitration was deemed unenforceable due to non-compliance with CPLR 2104 "open court" requirements. Finally, the Supreme Court's decision to grant leave for a supplemental bill of particulars was upheld, as it pertained to continuing consequences of existing injuries rather than new ones, aligning with CPLR 3043 [b].

Personal InjuryTrial Calendar RestorationSupplemental Bill of ParticularsArbitration Agreement EnforcementCPLR 2104CPLR 3043Medical ExaminationsWorkers' Compensation IssuesAppellate ReviewProcedural Motion
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 25,904 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