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. ADJ3604849 (VNO 0545037)
Regular
Aug 17, 2009

TOMAS ARAMBULA vs. TODD RUTKIN, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed petitions for reconsideration filed by Tami Navon and Ira Reinherz, D.C., finding the challenged orders compelling deposition attendance were interlocutory. The WCAB denied Reinherz's petition for removal, stating he failed to demonstrate prejudice from being compelled to attend his deposition as a lien claimant. However, the WCAB granted Navon's petition for removal, rescinding the order compelling her deposition as she is not a party or lien claimant and required proper subpoena service.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationPetitionDepositionCompel AttendanceLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive Right
References
7
Case No. ADJ 6962762, ADJ4127525 (SBR 0330147), ADJ9551358
Regular
Feb 19, 2016

HARMEET KAUR vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

The applicant filed two petitions challenging orders compelling attendance at a deposition and a PQME. The Appeals Board dismissed the first petition as it sought reconsideration of a non-final order. The Board then granted removal on the second petition, setting aside the order compelling the PQME attendance due to potential prejudice from an alleged agreed medical evaluation. Reconsideration was denied for both petitions as they addressed interlocutory matters.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionOrder Compelling PQMEWCJAgreed Medical Evaluation (AME)Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderRule 10859
References
7
Case No. ADJ10832179
Regular
Jun 08, 2018

ELIZABETH OLIVAS MONTOYA vs. SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of an order compelling her deposition. However, the Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the deposition order, and returned the matter to the trial level. This decision was based on the applicant's inability to drive due to injury and subsequent complications with her attorney's health, coupled with the procedural issue of not allowing the applicant an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. The Board hopes the parties can resolve the deposition dispute amicably at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling Attendance at DepositionWCJCumulative TraumaInstructional AssistantPetition to Compel DepositionOpportunity to be heardKnee Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ4067591 (VNO 0551402) ADJ4308603 (VNO 0559555)
Regular
Apr 12, 2011

MARIA BARAJAS vs. CONCERTO, INC., dba CITRON SPA, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves Dr. Herbert Marshak's petition for removal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order compelling his deposition. The Board denied the petition, deeming removal an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. Marshak's claims that he was not a proper party to the deposition and that his due process rights were violated were rejected. The Board found his deposition had commenced and was continued, and he failed to object to the order compelling his attendance.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDepositionNotice to ProduceJewish SabbathDue ProcessCompelling AttendanceSanctionsContempt Proceedings
References
2
Case No. ADJ10395296, ADJ10401675
Regular
Feb 06, 2017

KATHRYN KIRCHER vs. CIRCULATING AIR, INC., YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal regarding an order compelling her attendance and her attorney's deposition testimony. The Board treated the Petition for Removal as a timely objection demonstrating good cause for the applicant's inability to attend due to hospitalization. Consequently, the original order compelling deposition was deemed void by operation of law. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot because there was no outstanding order to challenge.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJGood CauseVoid OrderMootMedical ConditionObjectionExtraordinary Remedy
References
2
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. ADJ6999645
Regular
Mar 04, 2011

SANDY DROUIN vs. HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, TRAVELERS DIAMOND BAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying order denying a deposition was not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant had argued the WCJ erred in denying their request to compel a deposition due to insufficient provision for travel expenses. The Board noted unprofessional conduct by both attorneys.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Petition to Compel AttendanceDeposition CostsTransportation ExpensesAirline E-TicketTravel ExpensesFinal OrderSubstantive RightsIrreparable Harm
References
5
Case No. ADJ11377839 ADJ11377840
Regular
Jul 09, 2019

OLIVIA BARAJAS vs. JUSTIN VINEYARDS & WINERY, LLC, BROADSPIRE

The applicant sought reconsideration or removal of an order compelling her attendance at a deposition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely and denied the petition for removal. The WCAB found the order compelling attendance was an interlocutory discovery order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for the extraordinary remedy of removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceDepositionWCJDiscovery OrderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
12
Case No. ADJ3365645 (LAO 0885532) ADJ1587350 (LAO 0885533) ADJ564621 (LAO 0885534) ADJ7271674
Regular
Jun 24, 2011

RICARDO MUNOZ PADILLA vs. CISCO BROTHERS, INC. (A CORP), REDWOOD FIRD AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order compelling attendance at a deposition was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding that the applicant was denied due process by not having an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. The WCAB rescinded the original order and returned the matter to the trial level for reconsideration of the deposition issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompel DepositionAdministrative Law JudgeDue ProcessLabor Code Section 5900(a)Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.420(b)Protective OrderGood Cause
References
0
Case No. ADJ3759244 (LAO 0824127)MF ADJ2882458 (LAO 0858017) ADJ3806118 (LAO 0858018) ADJ565465 (LAO 0858019) ADJ288139 (LAO 0858889) ADJ2145507 (LAO 0858890)
Regular
Oct 07, 2010

VICTOR MALDONADO vs. P-W INDUSTRIES, INC., ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., CYPRESS INSURANCE CO., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, ZENITH INSURANCE CO.

Lien claimants petitioned for reconsideration or removal of a discovery order compelling deposition attendance and document production, alleging due process violations and overbreadth. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the order was not final. The WCAB denied the petition for removal, agreeing with the WCJ that the lien claimants failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLien ClaimantsDue ProcessEvidentiary HearingOverbroadBurdensomeWCJ OrderFinal Order
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 15,031 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