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. ADJ7580924 (MF), ADJ4184729 (SJO 0177821), ADJ1127103 (SJO 0179965), ADJ605452 (SJO 0166061)
Regular
Nov 21, 2011

IBRAHIM HAMAMJY vs. ENTEGRIS, INC.; SENTRY INSURANCE, ATCOR CALIFORNIA, INC.; GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration and denied Petitions for Removal filed by Entegris/Sentry Insurance and Atcor/Golden Eagle Insurance. The Board found that the August 29, 2011 Order consolidating three cases and taking them off calendar for further discovery was interlocutory, not a final order. Therefore, the reconsideration petition was improper. Removal petitions were denied as the Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding no error in the consolidation and discovery order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEntegrisInc.Sentry InsuranceGolden Eagle Insurance CompanyPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJconsolidationinterlocutory order
References
1
Case No. ADJ9585531
Regular
Aug 28, 2017

Andres Reyes vs. PT WELDING INC.; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Applicant Andres Reyes's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory discovery order. The WCAB also denied Applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and directed the parties to resolve the discovery dispute through the Administrative Director. The original order denied Applicant's motion to quash a subpoena for his entire school records from iLearn Institute, which Applicant argued was irrelevant and invaded his privacy. Applicant's petition was dismissed as reconsideration is improper for non-final orders, and his removal petition was denied as he failed to demonstrate significant prejudice.

WACABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery OrderMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumPrivacySignificant Prejudice
References
0
Case No. ADJ5776124
Regular
May 12, 2011

LESLEY KESSER vs. SANTA ROSA SCHOOL DISTRICT, REDWOOD EMPIRE SCHOOLS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's minute orders concerning discovery closure were not final orders. Treating the petition as a Petition for Removal, the WCAB denied it, finding the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's attempt to reopen discovery and depose a PQME was thus unsuccessful. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's decision on discovery limitations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinute OrdersDeclaration of ReadinessClosure of DiscoveryPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerPQMELabor CodeDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. ADJ9625941
Regular
Oct 15, 2015

DANIEL BORGSTROM vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY CHANNEL ISLANDS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both the applicant's and defendant's petitions for reconsideration, as they were taken from non-final interlocutory orders concerning a discovery dispute over deposing the Chief of Police. The applicant's petition for removal was dismissed as moot because the WCJ rescinded the order denying the deposition, thereby allowing it. Finally, the defendant's petition for removal was denied, as they failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and liberal discovery for the fair resolution of cases was favored.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder RescindingDepositionChief of PoliceDiscovery DisputeNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
10
Case No. LBO 0297361
Regular
Nov 28, 2007

ANTHONY TENNISON vs. NATIONAL PLANT SERVICES, CIGA by its servicing representative, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, for Reliance Insurance, in liquidation

The Appeals Board dismissed petitions for reconsideration and removal challenging an order compelling the applicant's wife to attend a continued deposition. The pro se petition was dismissed as untimely and unverified, while the attorney's petition was dismissed because discovery orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order, finding the wife waived her marital privilege by appearing and testifying, and cautioned parties about potential sanctions for their behavior.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaldepositionmarital privilegechild care reimbursementdiscovery orderinterlocutory orderfinal orderuntimely petition
References
12
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
Case No. ADJ7269617
Regular
Nov 28, 2011

LARRY MCATEE vs. WOLSELEY MANAGEMENT, INC dba FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's claims for specific and cumulative trauma industrial injuries to his back and nervous system. The defendant petitioned for removal and reconsideration after the administrative law judge (WCJ) closed discovery. Parties subsequently agreed to conduct additional discovery, which the WCJ acknowledged and recommended rescinding the discovery closure order. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the discovery closure order, and dismissed the petition for reconsideration as moot.

RemovalReconsiderationClosing DiscoveryRescinded OrderMandatory Settlement ConferencePetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
0
Case No. ADJ7836595
Regular
Oct 20, 2011

ROBERT MACKAY vs. CITY OF VALLEJO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involved the City of Vallejo's petition for reconsideration of an order closing discovery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding the order was not a final, appealable decision. Treating the petition as one for removal, the Board denied it, citing the defendant's failure to show prejudice or irreparable harm, and their dilatory actions regarding discovery. The defendant was admonished against future delaying tactics.

Panel QMEDiscovery ClosurePetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPriority ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessDue DiligenceFinal OrderSubstantive RightsIrreparable Harm
References
5
Case No. SAL 107212
Regular
Sep 13, 2007

ELVIRA BROOKS vs. HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order to take the matter off-calendar for further discovery was procedural and not a final order. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or substantial prejudice from the WCJ's decision to allow additional discovery. The Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning for consolidating cases and allowing further discovery for judicial economy.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Taking Matter Off-CalendarJudicial EconomySkeletal Petition to ReopenLabor Code Section 5410DismissalIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceFinal Order
References
2
Case No. ADJ2635006 (STK 0206833)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

SAMUEL B. JOHNSON, III vs. CHEVRON ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order denying discovery requests was not a final order. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. The Board affirmed the WCJ's discovery ruling as reasonable and returned the matter to the trial level. The applicant may seek reconsideration of a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJdiscovery requestsRequest for AdmissionsRequest for Authenticationfinal ordersubstantial prejudiceirreparable harm
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 25,624 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