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. 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. ADJ1274207 (LAO 0744227) ADJ1596712 (VNO 0436062)
Regular
May 21, 2012

JOSE DIAZ vs. ARBEN CORPORATION dba IN & OUT CAR WASH; CIGA by its servicing facility SEDGWICK CMS for CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO. in liquidation

The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the lien claimants' Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found that the Workers' Compensation Judge's discovery order compelling production was not a final order subject to reconsideration under Labor Code section 5900. Furthermore, the lien claimants failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, thus the Petition for Removal was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder To Compel ProductionDiscovery OrderFinal OrderPetition for RemovalSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary RemedySubstantive Rights
References
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. ADJ9426494
Regular
Jun 10, 2015

BARBARA SWENSON vs. COMPASS HEALTH, MURPHY AND BEANE, INC.

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the applicant sought interview transcripts and statements of defense witnesses. The judge initially ordered the defendant to produce all such materials. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the order was overbroad and violated due process by failing to account for work product and attorney-client privilege. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, amending the original order. The amended order requires the defendant to provide requested materials, excluding those protected by privilege, for which a privilege log must be filed.

Petition for RemovalInterview TranscriptsWitness StatementsWork ProductAttorney-Client PrivilegePrivilege LogDue ProcessOverbroad OrderAppeals BoardWCJ
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. ADJ6413644
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

JANICE HOWELL vs. NATIONAL MENTOR HOLDINGS, dba COLE VOCATIONAL SERVICES, administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The petition also sought removal, which was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The underlying issues, such as an order compelling medical record production, are interlocutory procedural matters not subject to reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and recommendation, denying both reconsideration and removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightRemovalWCJ Report and RecommendationStipulationsOrder Compelling Production of RecordsDiscovery ProcessPrivacy
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
Case No. ADJ1603747 (LBO 0364640) ADJ6857559
Regular
Mar 24, 2010

ROSARIO ESPINOZA vs. RECHE CANYON CONVALESCENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration/removal. The defendant argued they were denied due process by an administrative order compelling document production, as they claimed never to have received the underlying motion and lacked opportunity to respond. However, the WCAB found the petition moot because the disputed lien claim was subsequently resolved by stipulation and order. The WCAB also noted the defendant's petition was filed the day before a hearing where the issue could have been rectified, and questioned why the defendant didn't withdraw the petition after the resolution.

Order Compelling Production of DocumentsPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removallien claimantMotion to Compeldue processmootStipulation and Order to Pay Lien ClaimantWCAB
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ2558516 (VNO 0339174) ADJ4123268 (VNO 0339173)
Regular
May 20, 2015

PAULA RANGEL vs. PALOS VERDES DEVELOPERS, CIGA by its servicing facility, SEDGWICK CMS for FREMONT INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order compelling the service of medical-legal reports, not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB noted that the defendant's arguments regarding procedural due process were unfounded as they had a hearing and opportunity to be heard. Finally, the Board admonished the defendant's representative for misstating facts, citing outdated authority, and filing improper petitions, warning of future sanctions.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling ServiceMedical/Legal ReportingLien ClaimantProcedural Due ProcessInterlocutory OrderExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Showing 1-10 of 8,782 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