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. ADJ9924983 ADJ9925009
Regular
Feb 26, 2019

JESUS RODRIGUEZ GARCIA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed defendant's petition for reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The Board found that the order quashing the second deposition of Dr. Aun was a discovery order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. Defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or substantial prejudice required for removal, as they could still petition the court to reevaluate the need for the depositions. The Board also found no violation of due process, as defendant had an opportunity to present their arguments to the judge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalProtective OrderQuash DepositionDue ProcessIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceMedical EvidenceDeposition Leave
References
10
Case No. ADJ7621876
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

DAVID ESPINOZA RODRIGUEZ vs. WEST COAST PAINTING, INC., CNA CLAIMS SERVICES

This case concerns defendant West Coast Painting's petition to remove an order quashing their Notice of Deposition for applicant David Espinoza Rodriguez. The defendant argued the quashing occurred in a non-noticed walk-through and asserted new circumstances, including potential back surgery and treatment outside the MPN. However, the Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for a subsequent deposition and that no irreparable harm would result from denying it. The denial is consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610, which generally limits parties to one deposition per deponent without good cause shown.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQuashed DepositionSubsequent DepositionGood CauseSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ ReportMedical Provider NetworkBack Surgery
References
2
Case No. ADJ7046175
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

, DAVID WILKIE, vs. , CHATEAU HOTEL, and FIRSTCOMP OMAHA for SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY,

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal to the Appeals Board, challenging a WCJ's denial of his petition to quash depositions. The applicant argued improper notice and service of deposition subpoenas, but the WCJ admitted the depositions solely for the purpose of determining timely notice, not for substantive evidence. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition because the applicant had not yet suffered prejudice or irreparable harm, as the depositions had not been used for substantive purposes and he could raise objections later if aggrieved.

Petition for RemovalQuash DepositionsCode of Civil ProcedureCCP section 2025.270Proper NoticeProof of ServiceIndustrial InjuryLeft Upper ExtremityFindings and OrderWCAB Rule 10843
References
0
Case No. ADJ3724175 (LBO 0309160)
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

Trudy Rabb vs. FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES; Permissibly Self-Insured/FEDERATED CLAIMS SERVICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because the Minute Order denying a motion to quash a deposition is not a final order subject to reconsideration. The petition was also dismissed for failing to meet the statutory verification requirement. The Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no evidence of irreparable harm or significant prejudice that would justify this extraordinary remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMotion to QuashAgreed Medical ExaminerTemporary DisabilityUnverified PetitionFinal OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive Right
References
5
Case No. ADJ1443437 LAO 0869505 ADJ2073136 LAO 0859208 ADJ2254995 LAO 0869595 ADJ4428071 LAO 0869514 ADJ4561708 LAO 0859207
Regular
Oct 25, 2018

JACQUELINE STELLY vs. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, finding that the WCJ erred in quashing the deposition of Dr. Majcher. The Board determined that the defendant violated a stipulation by seeking a trial date from a different judge without notice. Additionally, the defendant failed to comply with procedural requirements for quashing a deposition notice and the applicant's due process rights necessitate the opportunity to depose Dr. Majcher. Therefore, the WCJ's order was rescinded, and the matter was returned for further proceedings, including the deposition of Dr. Majcher.

Petition for RemovalQuash DepositionStipulation ViolationDue ProcessEx ParteMeet and ConferWCJQualified Medical EvaluatorSupplemental ReportDiscovery
References
6
Case No. ADJ8595235
Regular
Nov 09, 2016

Thomas Carroll vs. Lehigh Hanson Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's initial petition for removal as procedurally improper, as it challenged a notice of intent rather than a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's supplemental petition for removal, which sought to overturn the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) order closing discovery. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying the supplemental petition, especially since the WCJ left open the possibility of allowing the deposition after trial. A dissenting commissioner argued that the deposition of Dr. Dell was necessary to update his opinion and ensure a complete record for apportionment, similar to Dr. Russell's deposition.

Petition for RemovalNotice of IntentionQuash DepositionPQMEMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureSupplemental PetitionDr. DellDr. RussellSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. ADJ11140577
Regular
Sep 16, 2019

JOSE BERDIER WENCES vs. BAY AREA TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration that was denied by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB found that the applicant's petition was improperly filed as a petition for reconsideration and should have been a petition for removal. This is because the challenged order, quashing a deposition, was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. Therefore, the WCAB denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFinding and OrderWCJInjury AOE/COERectum injuryThreshold issueInterlocutory decisionPetition for RemovalExtraordinary remedy
References
7
Case No. ADJ3213121 (LBO 0361407)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

GLENDA M. BRUCE vs. COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that quashed the applicant's deposition. The applicant amended her claim to include hair loss and a fall after her last deposition. The Board found good cause for an additional deposition, as the defendant did not have notice of these new claims prior to the previous depositions. Therefore, the applicant is required to submit to a fifth deposition specifically addressing the hair loss and fall allegations.

Petition for RemovalQuashed DepositionCompensable ConsequencesAmended ApplicationIndustrial InjuryHair LossFallPrior NoticeFifth DepositionRescinded Order
References
0
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 14,422 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