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. ADJ9244473
Regular
Jan 20, 2015

LILIA TAMAYO vs. SERRA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, COMPWEST INSURANCE

This case involves Lilia Tamayo's workers' compensation claim against Serra Manufacturing Corporation. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) vacated a trial submission to develop the medical record, specifically ordering panels of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). The defendant sought removal, arguing this was an inappropriate method for record development. The Appeals Board denied removal, agreeing with the WCJ that the record needed development but finding the ordered method of seeking supplemental opinions from the treating physician inappropriate based on prior precedent. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order for further development, though it did not specify the exact procedure pending further action.

Petition for RemovalVacating SubmissionOrder for Further DevelopmentQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Orthopedic SurgeryPsychiatryIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryTrunk InjuryPsyche Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ3817836 (SJO 0250881)
Regular
May 31, 2012

ZUFAN A. REDA vs. FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case concerns applicant Zufan A. Reda's claim for permanent total disability due to a psychiatric injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is ordering the development of the record because neither the applicant's QME, Dr. Sidle, nor the defendant's QME, Dr. Keins, provided substantial evidence regarding the apportionment of psychiatric permanent disability. The WCAB found that Dr. Sidle's report incorrectly addressed causation of injury rather than apportionment of disability, and Dr. Keins' report was rejected as non-substantial due to prior rulings on industrial causation. Therefore, the WCAB has appointed Dr. Roy Curry as a "regular physician" to conduct a new evaluation on the issue of psychiatric permanent disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationDevelopment of RecordLabor Code section 5701Industrial InjuryPsychiatric InjuryCompensable ConsequenceSection 5803Section 5804Section 5410Permanent Total Disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ7523998
Regular
Nov 03, 2014

GEORGE HARVEY SMITH vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The defendant sought reconsideration of an order for further development of the record regarding the applicant's competency. The applicant had previously sustained industrial injuries, including to his psyche, resulting in an $88\%$ permanent disability award. The judge ordered a comprehensive evaluation to determine the applicant's competency from 2006 to the present. The Board dismissed the petition, ruling that the order for further discovery was not a final order and thus not subject to reconsideration. The dissenting opinion argued that while the petition was procedurally flawed, the order for further development should be rescinded as the record did not support a finding of incompetency.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryPsychePermanent DisabilityCompetencyLabor Code Section 5408Guardian Ad LitemMental Incompetency
References
15
Case No. ADJ3858007 (SBR 0314079)
Regular
May 26, 2016

RONALD STEFFY vs. H STREET COLLISION CENTER, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal of an Order Vacating Submission. The judge vacated submission to further develop the record due to insufficient evidence, finding the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinions unpersuasive after reviewing medical records and sub rosa video evidence. The Board found the order did not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as it allows for a complete adjudication of issues, including medication usage and permanent disability. Further medical-legal examinations were ordered to develop a record capable of supporting findings on impairment and causation.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)McDuffieLabor Code section 5701sub rosa videoinsubstantial evidencepermanent disabilitycausationvocational rehabilitation
References
5
Case No. ADJ1218087 (RIV 0084685)
Regular
Jun 15, 2010

ZZLATKO KATIC vs. CENTRAL REFRIGERATED SERVICE INC., GREAT WEST SOUTH SIOUX CITY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal to challenge the WCJ's order to take the case off calendar to depose the primary treating physician regarding deficiencies in the permanent and stationary report. The defendant argued the WCJ lacked the power to order further record development before trial and would suffer irreparable harm. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the WCJ's order to develop the record was correct as the treating physician's report was the only one addressing permanent disability and lacked substantial evidence. The Board also rejected the defendant's claim of irreparable harm from going to trial on an inadequate record.

Petition for removalWCJ orderOrder taking off calendarPrimary treating physician (PTP)Permanent and stationary (P&S) report deficienciesRecord developmentSubstantial evidenceIndustrial injuryAgreed medical evaluator (AME)Mandatory settlement conference
References
0
Case No. ADJ7165302
Regular
Mar 01, 2012

JOSE LUIS TEJEDA GARCIA vs. THE MODERN GROUP, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORP.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order, as the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) had only issued an order to develop the record. The WCAB treated the petition as a Petition for Removal and denied it, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision to order further development of the record, citing deficiencies in the existing medical evidence regarding industrial aggravation of the applicant's claimed injury. The defendant's arguments that the WCJ acted improperly or developed a new legal theory were found to be without merit.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJReport and Recommendationdevelop the recordAOE/COEinjurycumulative traumaindustrial aggravation
References
2
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. 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. POM 0264727POM 0267166
Regular
Aug 19, 2008

CELIA MUNOZ vs. THE TOWN CLUB, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY/GAB ROBINS

Here's a summary of the provided case excerpts: In *Fiducia*, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found applicant sustained industrial injuries but had failed to attend medical exams and hearings, leading to dismissal for good cause. The Board vacated the prior dismissal and remanded for further development of the record, acknowledging that the applicant's failure to attend examinations and hearings warranted dismissal. However, due to lack of current medical evidence, the Board vacated the dismissal and returned the case to the trial level to allow applicant to attend examinations and hearings. In *Munoz*, the defendant sought reconsideration of an order vacating submission and returning the case to the trial calendar to further develop the evidentiary record concerning a lien claimant's charges. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it was not from a final order and denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of irreparable harm or significant prejudice. The Board emphasized that interlocutory orders to further develop evidence are not subject to reconsideration.

WCABindustrial injurypsycheTMJnasal traumateethblood pressuredismissalgood causetemporary disability
References
12
Case No. ADJ1700022 (VNO 0558245)
Regular
Feb 07, 2014

CLARENCE GRANDY vs. TURNER FURNITURE, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for removal challenging an administrative law judge's (WCJ) order to develop the record on psychiatric disability, chronic pain, and cervical spine injury. The defendant argued the record was sufficient for a decision and that the applicant failed to exercise due diligence in obtaining evidence for these conditions. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding no justification for further development of the record, particularly since the applicant asserted they were prepared for trial and had not sought to supplement it. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order and returned the case for decision based on the existing record.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionOrder to Develop the Recordpsychiatric disabilitychronic paincervical spineindustrial injuryAgreed Medical Evaluatordeposition
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 25,672 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