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. ADJ1298920
Regular
Dec 05, 2011

TRUDY LEE vs. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant filed a petition to disqualify the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) based on alleged enmity and bias demonstrated by comments made at a lien trial. The WCJ acknowledged being overly zealous in settlement discussions and apologized for any outburst but denied bias or prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the record and found no evidence of bias or prejudgment by the WCJ. Therefore, the petition for disqualification was denied.

WCABPetition for DisqualificationAdministrative Law JudgeEstrinLien TrialEnmityBiasUnqualified OpinionReport and RecommendationOverly Zealous
References
0
Case No. ADJ251193 (MON 0300879)
Regular
Apr 13, 2009

WILLIAM VALDEZ vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA/AIR RESOURCES BOARD; legally uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/ STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

Defendant filed a removal petition arguing a WCJ order for employee email and document production violated privacy rights and was overly burdensome. Due to a lost case file, the Appeals Board lacked crucial context like the date of injury. Consequently, the Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the case to the trial level for file reconstruction and a new discovery order.

Petition for RemovalRescind OrderDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Duces TecumPrivacy RightsOnerousOppressiveBurdensomePrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
0
Case No. ADJ7196912
Regular
Jul 24, 2012

BOBBY BROWN vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP

The defendants sought reconsideration or removal of a prior order allowing broad discovery of their claims file. The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the prior order was not final, but granted removal to admit specific exhibits. The Board affirmed the original order's allowance of discovery of the claims file, except for privileged material, and returned the case for further proceedings. A dissenting opinion argued the discovery was overly broad and not sufficiently relevant to justify the burden on the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationFindings and OrderClaims FileSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product Doctrine
References
0
Case No. ADJ6887208
Regular
Sep 01, 2010

MARLENE ARIAS vs. E. K. S. SECURITY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant seeking reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision that excluded vocational expert evidence. The Board granted reconsideration, finding that significant prejudice would result from denying this discovery. The WCAB amended the decision to allow further development of the record on all relevant matters, including vocational rehabilitation, because the record was insufficient to assess permanent disability and the discovery closure was overly restrictive. Therefore, discovery is now open for all matters that could lead to admissible evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVocational Rehabilitation ExpertDiscoveryPsychiatric InjuryPermanent DisabilityAdministrative Law JudgeFindings of FactOrderPetition for Removal
References
3
Case No. ADJ7254307
Regular
Aug 20, 2014

STACY TURNER vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal and rescinded the prior order allowing inspection of prison facilities. The Board found the original order was overly broad and improperly directed, ordering that the matter be returned to the trial level. The primary issue to be resolved first is whether the applicant's claimed cancer is presumed to arise out of his employment under Labor Code section 3212.1. Once this presumption issue is decided, a more narrowly focused inspection order can be determined.

Petition for RemovalOrder Allowing Inspection PremisesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeState Compensation Insurance FundCorrectional OfficerNon-Hodgkin's LymphomaCarcinogensCancer PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.1
References
2
Case No. AHM 0141207
Regular
Jul 13, 2007

JOHN MAGINNIS vs. REED ELSIVIER, CRAWFORD & COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for removal, partially quashing a subpoena duces tecum issued to Reed Elsivier. The Board found that the applicant failed to provide proper notice to non-party employees whose employment records were sought, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.6, and that some categories were overbroad or irrelevant. The subpoena was affirmed for categories relevant to the applicant's claim and potentially containing disability-related information, but quashed for those violating privacy rights or being overly broad.

RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumPetition to QuashCode of Civil Procedure section 1985.6Non-party employeesRight of privacyEmployment recordsOverbroadIndustrial injuryPsych/stress
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Craig v. New York Telephone Co.

This appeal stems from a wrongful death action where the plaintiff's decedent died of a heart attack after working at a fire scene. The plaintiff sought discovery from the defendant, Telephone Company, regarding the fire and workplace conditions. The defendant appealed Justice Wright's order to comply with discovery demands. The appellate court modified the order, striking plaintiff's demand number two as overly broad and burdensome, while affirming demands three and four as sufficiently specific, thus partially affirming and partially modifying the original order.

DiscoveryInspectionWrongful DeathWorkplace SafetyFire IncidentAppellate ReviewProtective OrderBurdensome DemandsSpecificity in DiscoveryCivil Procedure
References
5
Case No. ADJ9267687
Regular
Apr 02, 2019

NORMA DE JESUS ZARAGOZA vs. FRANCHISE INVESTMENT CORPORATION dba ROUND TABLE PIZZA and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE/FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board imposed a $500 sanction against applicant's attorney, Peter T. Nguyen, and his law firm. This sanction arose from attaching over 325 pages of exhibits, many not in evidence, to a petition, violating WCAB rules regarding page limits and proper exhibit submission. The attorney's claim of inexperience was rejected, as attorneys are responsible for knowing and adhering to procedural rules, and zealous advocacy does not excuse rule violations. The Board also noted the attorney's failure to adequately cite the trial record in support of his petition.

WCABRemovalSanctionsLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561WCAB Rule 10842WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10856Petition for ReconsiderationExhibits
References
9
Case No. ADJ8727749
Regular
Sep 26, 2013

CINDY VARGAS vs. SEARS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns an employer's petition to remove a WCJ's order compelling them to provide a complete list of their Medical Provider Network (MPN) in specific specialties. The employer argued this was overly burdensome, preferring to limit the list to providers within 30 miles of the applicant's residence. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding the WCJ's order was not burdensome or harassing under Administrative Director Rule 9767.12(f)(3). The Board noted the employer could fulfill the order electronically via CD or website, even if limited to the requested specialties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMedical Provider NetworkMPN listingTitle 8 Cal. Reg. § 9767.12(f)(3)Administrative Director Ruleregional area listingcomplete provider listingelectronic listingCD
References
0
Case No. ADJ686632 (LAO 0573956)
Regular
Sep 28, 2016

GARY TOBIA vs. LA PETITE BOULANGERIA, TRAVELERS CASUALTY \& SURETY COMPANY, BROADSPIRE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal and rescinded the WCJ's August 18, 2016 order compelling discovery. The Board found the order to be overly broad and issued without a sufficient record to weigh discovery disputes. Furthermore, the relevance of the requested documents, particularly those dating back to the 1980s, was not adequately established, especially as the sole outstanding issue appears to be medical treatment. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify outstanding issues and create a proper record for any future discovery orders.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumWCJ OrderDiscovery DisputeClaims FileNon-Privileged RecordsEmployer's First Report of InjuryJob-Site PostingsMedical Treatment
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 44 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