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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2015

Tuzzolino v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.

In July 2013, the plaintiff was injured in a fall at the defendant's plant, sustaining a wrist fracture, and injuries to the lower back, right leg, and foot. He underwent a lumbar laminectomy in April 2014 and sought treatment from various healthcare providers, including a spinal surgeon. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action alleging Labor Law violations. The defendant served subpoenas on the plaintiff's nonparty treating healthcare providers, claiming the testimony was unavailable through other sources. The plaintiff moved to quash these subpoenas and sought a protective order. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion, and the appellate court affirmed, ruling that the defendant failed to demonstrate the testimony sought was unrelated to diagnosis and treatment or that it was the only means of obtaining the information. The court emphasized that the treating providers' records were accessible for review by the defendant's experts.

SubpoenasProtective OrderMedical RecordsTreating PhysiciansDepositionsDiscoveryAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySpinal Surgery
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2014

In re Maria S.

This case concerns a motion filed by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) to quash a subpoena from respondent Ramon R., seeking records from a 2007 investigation into his household, which was previously deemed unfounded. Ramon R. is currently facing allegations of sexual offenses against Maria S. in a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding. The court determined that the 2007 investigative materials are relevant to the current allegations, especially regarding Maria S.’s interactions with Ramon R. Despite Social Services Law § 422(5)(a) mandating the sealing of unfounded reports, the court ruled that other investigative documents are not subject to this sealing provision. Consequently, the motion to quash was granted in part and denied in part, ordering ACS to release all documents from the 2007 investigation, excluding the oral report transmittal, after an in camera review.

SubpoenaChild Protective ServicesFamily LawRecord DisclosureConfidentialityUnfounded ReportsIn Camera ReviewSocial Services LawFamily Court ActChild Abuse Allegations
References
2
Case No. ADJ8984860
Regular
Dec 30, 2020

AMADOR ORTIZ GARCIA vs. ISEC, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal of the WCJ's order quashing the deposition of Dr. Mouradian, an Agreed Medical Examiner. The Board found the record insufficient to evaluate the defendant's due process claim regarding the quashed deposition. Consequently, the order quashing the deposition was rescinded, and the case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings. This decision allows for a proper review of the issues and evidence.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical ExaminerWCJDue ProcessQuashed DepositionReport and RecommendationDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceFindings of FactAdmitted Evidence
References
2
Case No. ADJ7039298
Regular
Jul 08, 2010

GARY HILTABIDEL vs. WESTERN STAR TRANSPORT, DELOS INSURANCE administered by AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATOR (FRESNO), 02HR STAFF LEASING, PROVIDENCE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS. CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The defendant sought reconsideration of an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum for personnel and employment records from a co-defendant. The WCAB found the subpoena quashing order was not a final order, thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which is required for a petition for removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Quashing Subpoena Duces TecumCCP Section 1987.1Employee Leasing AgreementStaff LeasingDiscoverable DocumentsFinal OrderSubstantive Rights
References
6
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
4
Case No. ADJ15407478
Regular
May 22, 2025

MARIA CORDOVA vs. GRUMA CORPORATION, ARCH INDEMNITY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed defendant's petitions for reconsideration and removal, challenging a WCJ's order to quash a notice to produce an out-of-state adjuster. The Board determined that the WCJ's order was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order subject to reconsideration, and that removal was not warranted due to a lack of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the Board found the petition moot as the notice to produce had expired or was explicitly quashed. The defendants and their attorneys were admonished for causing delays and filing a moot petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Quashing Notice to ProduceInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderMootnessNotice to ProduceLabor Code § 5909WCJ
References
10
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. ADJ9268174
Regular
Jan 07, 2015

CHARLES BURNS vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of San Bernardino's petition for removal regarding a judge's order on subpoenas. The County sought to quash all subpoenas for records related to an inmate's claimed industrial injury, arguing the inmate was not an employee. The Board found the County failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order, even if the initial petition to quash was untimely. If the inmate is not an employee, the County will not be liable for costs related to the records or medical-legal expenses.

Subpoena Duces TecumPetition for RemovalOrder Quashing SubpoenaPenal Code Section 4017Labor Code Section 3370Inmate EmploymentRisk ManagementSan Bernardino Sheriff's DepartmentArrowhead Regional Medical CenterSubstantial Prejudice
References
1
Case No. ADJ6979005
Regular
Mar 13, 2012

DOMINIQUE ALLEN vs. NORDSTROM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Nordstrom's petition for reconsideration because the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) order quashing most of Nordstrom's subpoenas duces tecum was not a final order. Nordstrom sought records to investigate an alleged psyche injury, but the ALJ found its requests overbroad and not sufficiently relevant. While the ALJ quashed most subpoenas, it allowed Nordstrom to reissue narrower requests focused on the admitted knee injury and alleged psyche injury. The WCAB found no abuse of discretion, noting that discovery should be balanced with applicant's privacy rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OpinionSubpoena Duces Tecum (SDT)OverbroadRelevanceDue ProcessDiscoveryPsychiatric ClaimPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
13
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
7
Showing 1-10 of 24,056 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