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. 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
0
Case No. ADJ9308094
Regular
Nov 05, 2015

ROBERT KING vs. CUPERTINO ELECTRIC, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the underlying order compelling a new QME panel was not a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm resulted from the order. The Arbitrator had discretionary authority to order a new QME panel due to a dispute over the review of medical imaging. The defendant's due process claims were rejected as they did not object or request further development of the record at the arbitration hearing.

QME PanelPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalnon-final ordersubstantive rightsthreshold issueinterlocutorymedical discoverysignificant prejudiceirreparable harm
References
8
Case No. ADJ9237052
Regular
Apr 12, 2019

ANGELICA BERMUDEZ vs. JACK IN THE BOX, Administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petitioner's (Tower Imaging) Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's prior order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The WCJ had rejected Tower Imaging's petition for non-IBR dispute resolution due to its failure to appear at a lien conference. The Board found that Tower Imaging was denied due process and a fair hearing. The Board also admonished Tower Imaging's representative for misleading statements in the petition.

Petition for RemovalOrder Rejecting Petition for Non-IBR DisputeDue ProcessFair HearingSubstantial JusticePetition for DeterminationLien ConferenceWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and Release
References
5
Case No. ADJ9421326, ADJ9358335
Regular
May 06, 2016

IVY CHEN vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

This case involves a dispute over whether the parties mutually consented to cancel their agreement to use an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) for applicant Ivy Chen. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding the initial order non-final. The WCAB then granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board determined that while no explicit written cancellation existed, the parties' actions in jointly pursuing a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) constituted mutual consent to abandon the AME agreement.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code section 4062.2(f)mutual written consentQualified Medical Examinerinterim orderfinal ordersignificant prejudiceirreparable harm
References
0
Case No. ADJ9625941
Regular
Oct 15, 2015

DANIEL BORGSTROM vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHANNEL ISLANDS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration, as they were taken from non-final interlocutory orders concerning a discovery dispute over deposing the Chief of Police. The applicant's petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the WCJ rescinded the order denying the deposition, thereby allowing it. Finally, the defendant's petition for removal was denied, as they failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and liberal discovery for the fair resolution of cases was favored.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder RescindingDepositionChief of PoliceDiscovery DisputeNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
10
Case No. ADJ11389410
Regular
May 10, 2019

MCKENZIE FLIPPEN vs. RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS, BROADSPIRE, A CRAWFORD COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final, interlocutory order denying a change of venue. Such procedural orders do not determine substantive rights or liabilities and thus are not appealable via reconsideration. The WCAB also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify this extraordinary remedy. Therefore, both petitions were rejected.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
6
Case No. ADJ438881 (LAO 0803997) ADJ524371 (LAO 0803998) ADJ4280229 (LAO 0842506) ADJ3118948 (LAO 0887798)
Regular
Jun 22, 2011

Shirley Brown vs. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because the appealed order was not a final order, but rather a discovery-related ruling. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, adopting the reasoning of the Workers' Compensation Judge. The defendant's core arguments, including bias of the defense QME and the denial of an additional QME, were thus rejected by the Board. This decision upholds the non-final nature of the WCJ's order and denies further review or intervention based on the defendant's claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalJoint Findings and OrderQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Defense QMEDr. David DavidBias AllegationsDiscovery OrderFinal Order
References
4
Case No. ADJ2003074 (SFO 0486401) (ADJ3727915 - CONSOLIDATED
Regular
Apr 05, 2010

ALEXANDRA MONTEITH vs. EDWARD LITTLEJOHN, M.D., TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES (BHHC)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed TIG Specialty Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration because it sought to appeal a non-final order. The WCAB also denied TIG's petition for removal, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that TIG failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable injury. This decision confirms that appeals can only be made from final orders that determine substantive rights and liabilities. The WCAB found TIG's argument regarding a non-party's interference with the settlement was not properly before them due to the non-final nature of the appealed order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseVacating OrderAdministrative Law JudgeNon-party InterferenceCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)PrejudiceFinal Order
References
5
Case No. ADJ9496892
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

JUNE JONES vs. CALIFORNIA SPECIAL PATROL, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

Applicant's attorney sought reconsideration of an Order Rescinding Submission, Order Vacating Finding and Order, and Order to Develop the Record dated June 27, 2025, arguing further record development was unnecessary. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition and denial if treated as a petition for removal. The Appeals Board timely acted on the petition but noted issues with notice of transmission to the parties. They dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the underlying order non-final, and denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Rescinding SubmissionFindings and OrderLabor Code section 5909Transmission of CaseElectronic Adjudication Management SystemNotice of TransmissionFinal Order
References
8
Case No. ADJ7597612, ADJ6995603, ADJ9551033
Regular
Dec 20, 2019

DIANE CLAY vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Diane Clay's petition for reconsideration because it sought review of a non-final interlocutory order. The Board also denied her petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would warrant this extraordinary remedy. Therefore, Clay's challenges to the WCJ's order are rejected, and the matter will proceed without further immediate review.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 28,053 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