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. ADJ9060378
Regular
Apr 21, 2014

MELISSA OVERTON vs. THE PAPER BAG PRINCESS, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over applicant Melissa Overton's deposition, specifically regarding the presence of an employer representative and videotaping. A WCJ vacated a prior submission order to compel a psychiatric evaluation to assess the applicant's fitness for deposition under those conditions. The defendant sought removal, arguing the WCJ erred in vacating submission and ordering further discovery. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order and submission order, and returned the case for reassignment to a new WCJ to resolve the discovery dispute.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionFurther DiscoveryProtective OrdersDeposition LocationEmployer RepresentativePsychiatric EvaluationIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaWCJ Reassignment
References
0
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. ADJ892953 (LAO 0863530) ADJ4178497 (POM 0234792)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

FELICIDAD MCINTOSH vs. GOLDEN STATE FOODS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order vacating the Order of Submission. The WCAB also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ vacated the submission to allow for the development of the record regarding apportionment, which was inadequately addressed in the agreed medical examiner reports. The WCAB clarified that reconsideration is only available for final orders, and removal is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases demonstrating substantial prejudice or irreparable injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating Order of SubmissionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)CausationApportionmentBurden of ProofFinal OrderSubstantive Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. ADJ8040191
Regular
Sep 18, 2013

JOEL GOODEN vs. HILLS PET NUTRITION, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant petitioned for removal, seeking to overturn an order vacating submission of the case for further medical record development. The administrative law judge (WCJ) had vacated submission to review PQME reports from Dr. Georgis and Dr. Francisco. The WCJ subsequently took the matter off calendar to allow parties to obtain a supplemental report from the PQME reviewing Dr. Francisco's report. As the issue raised by the defendant's petition is now moot due to the subsequent order, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalVacating SubmissionPQMESupplemental ReportWCJOff CalendarMootAppeals BoardWorkers' CompensationCase Development
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. DiPaolo

Plaintiff, the United States government, sued Salvatore DiPaolo, Jr. for failing to comply with a final administrative order issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for two underground diesel fuel storage tanks in Yonkers, New York. DiPaolo failed to comply with pre-hearing procedures, did not attend the administrative hearing, and subsequently defaulted on civil penalties of $80,317 and compliance orders. The government initiated this action to enforce the ALJ's default order and seek additional civil penalties for continued noncompliance and failure to provide requested information. The District Court granted the government's motion for default judgment as to liability, affirming the original $80,317 penalty under *res judicata*. Additionally, the court assessed $9,364.14 for persistent noncompliance and a nominal $1 penalty for failing to furnish information, totaling $89,682.14, and issued injunctive relief requiring compliance with EPA requirements or permanent closure of the tanks, and submission of the requested information.

Environmental LawRCRAUST ViolationsEPA EnforcementDefault JudgmentCivil PenaltiesInjunctive ReliefRes JudicataRegulatory NoncomplianceFederal Litigation
References
24
Case No. ADJ7489572
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

Francisco Castillo vs. Duran Contracting (dba), Star Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an interim award finding applicant sustained an industrial injury to his eye. The Board found the award premature because the hearing was not concluded, evidenced by an order to take the matter off calendar for an Agreed Medical Examiner evaluation and the absence of a submission order. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, clarification of evidence, and a final decision after completion of discovery and submission on all issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardInterim Findings and AwardAgreed Medical Examinerindustrial injuryleft eyeleft foreheadfarm laborerapplicant's testimonycontradictory evidenceapplicant's credibility
References
3
Case No. ADJ11225851
Regular
Oct 18, 2019

SUZAN ELSHAMI vs. C & A RESTAURANTS INC.; SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, administered by BROADSPIRE

This case involves an applicant challenging a WCJ's decision regarding a Medical Provider Network (MPN) issue. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to amend the order vacating submission, instructing further record development without vacating submission. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of injury AOE/COE, a threshold issue, while deeming the MPN development order interlocutory. The Board clarified that for MPN compliance, the network only needs at least three available primary treating physicians of an appropriate specialty within access standards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalVacating SubmissionFurther Development of RecordThreshold IssueFinal DecisionInterlocutory IssueInjury Arising Out of and in the Course of Employment (AOE/COE)Medical Provider Network (MPN)
References
7
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. ADJ4423159 (SAL 0118926)
Regular
Sep 20, 2016

ISIDRO CERVANTES vs. QUALITY FARMS LABOR, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal to review an administrative law judge's order precluding applicant from submitting non-medical records to the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Board determined that certain medical study abstracts and specific AMA Guides pages were relevant and permissible for submission to the QME, particularly concerning the disputed application of the Combined Values Chart. However, other submitted non-medical documents, such as panel decisions and index pages for abstracts, were deemed not sufficiently relevant or their authenticity was unclear, thus their submission was not permitted. Ultimately, the Board amended the original order to allow the applicant to provide only the specifically identified relevant medical abstracts and AMA Guides pages to the QME.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorNon-medical recordsMedical study abstractsAMA GuidesCombined Values ChartLabor Code section 4062.3PrejudiceIrreparable harm
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 24,100 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