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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. ADJ11344177
Regular
Jul 23, 2019

RONALD BELL, JR. vs. ALLIED UNIVERSAL TOPCO, LLC, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding a prior order that quashed subpoenas and directed the defendant to produce documents from a third party. The WCAB found the original order exceeded the administrative law judge's (ALJ) authority by ordering the defendant to produce documents they could not control and by going beyond the scope of the motion to quash. This decision ensures the defendant's right to object to discovery without being compelled to produce third-party records they lack the power to obtain. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

RemovalOrder Quashing SubpoenasOrder to ProduceCustodian of RecordsSubpoena Duces TecumDiscovery StatutesLabor Code § 130Code of Civil ProcedureInterlocutory OrdersStanding
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. ADJ3974204
Regular
May 05, 2015

MARIA CORTINA vs. EDGEWATER CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, EVEREST NATIONAL COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's Petition for Reconsideration challenging a WCJ's order to quash deposition subpoenas. The defendant argues they were denied due process as they received no notice of the petition and thus no opportunity to oppose it. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order was not final but granted removal. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order, finding the defendant was improperly denied notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that discovery was stipulated to remain open.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to QuashDeposition SubpoenaProtective OrderLien ClaimantStipulationDiscoveryDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to Be Heard
References
Case No. ADJ8071753
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

RAFAEL CASTRO vs. VALLEY CREST COMPANIES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, quashing the applicant's subpoena duces tecum. The Board found the subpoena's request for "any and all logs" to be vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Consequently, the employer cannot be compelled to produce documents under such an unclear demand. The applicant must issue a more specific subpoena if he wishes to obtain particular documents.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Quash SubpoenaSubpoena Duces TecumWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLandskaperIndustrial InjuryVague SubpoenaAmbiguous SubpoenaIntelligent Response
References
Case No. ADJ10447246
Regular
Dec 12, 2019

Corliss Anderson vs. WAL-MART STORES INC, YORK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied her Petition for Removal. The applicant sought reconsideration of an order suspending her petition to quash a subpoena duces tecum due to missing documentation. The Board found that the order was not a final order, making reconsideration improper, and that removal was not warranted as the applicant could still cure the deficiencies. Therefore, the applicant's requests were dismissed and denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumPetition to QuashOrder Suspending ActionFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery IssuePrejudice
References
Case No. ADJ9585531
Regular
Aug 28, 2017

Andres Reyes vs. PT WELDING INC.; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Applicant Andres Reyes's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory discovery order. The WCAB also denied Applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and directed the parties to resolve the discovery dispute through the Administrative Director. The original order denied Applicant's motion to quash a subpoena for his entire school records from iLearn Institute, which Applicant argued was irrelevant and invaded his privacy. Applicant's petition was dismissed as reconsideration is improper for non-final orders, and his removal petition was denied as he failed to demonstrate significant prejudice.

WACABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery OrderMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumPrivacySignificant Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ4385917 (AHM 0070664)
Regular
May 10, 2010

CYNTHIA BECKER vs. ST. JUDE MEDICAL CENTER, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the order denying their motion to quash subpoenas was not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, stating there was no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable injury. The defendant had argued the WCJ erred in denying their motion to quash subpoenas for dental records and other facilities. The Board concluded that any objections could be raised later if costs were incurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalMotion to QuashSubpoenas Duces TecumInterlocutory Procedural OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ10738767
Regular
Apr 21, 2023

JEANETTE FRANCE vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER

This case involves applicant's attempt to compel the personal appearance of an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) via subpoena duces tecum. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the applicant's motion as a Petition for Removal of the WCJ's order quashing the subpoena. The WCAB denied removal because the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as required by removal standards. Additionally, the Board noted the petition lacked proper verification, which would have been grounds for dismissal had it not been denied on its merits.

Petition for RemovalMotion to VacateOrder Quashing Subpoena Duces TecumAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Good CauseWCAB Rule 10682Personal AppearanceMedical EvidenceSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ13515742
Regular
Dec 10, 2020

Jonathan Camacho vs. Shimano North American Holding, Inc., Mitsui Sumitomo Cincinnati

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order to comply with a subpoena duces tecum. The Board found that the WCJ's order was issued without a proper record, including findings of fact, admitted evidence, or a hearing on the petition to quash. The matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with due process.

Petition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumOrder to ComplyPersonnel FileLabor Code Section 1198.5Petition to QuashWCJAppeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Showing 1-10 of 8,663 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