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. 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. ADJ8436843
Regular
Jun 15, 2015

KEITH VOELKER vs. G.S.E. CONSTRUCTION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant seeking to quash subpoenas duces tecum issued by the defendant. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal in part, quashing the subpoena for personal financial information from a golf course as irrelevant. However, the Board affirmed the denial of the motion to quash subpoenas for medical records, finding that the applicant placed his medical condition and its consequences in issue. The Board also clarified that an affidavit showing good cause is not required for a deposition subpoena seeking only business records for copying.

Subpoena Duces TecumPetition for RemovalMotion to QuashPhysician-Patient PrivilegePrivacy RightsCompensable ConsequencesApportionment of Permanent DisabilityCode of Civil ProcedureBusiness Records ExceptionGood Cause
References
6
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Constance B. v. Joan M.

This case involves a motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent Joan M. The subpoena sought all records pertaining to Sonya M. from Under 21, a private, not-for-profit corporation serving runaway and homeless youths. The underlying matter is a petition where Sonya M.'s mother and her paramour, Robert B., are charged with child abuse and neglect. The court determined that the information sought was irrelevant to the neglect proceeding, deeming it a "fishing expedition." Crucially, the court found that Under 21 is legally prohibited from disclosing such information due to the confidentiality provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1978 (Executive Law, art 19-H, § 532 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (9 NYCRR 182.1 et seq.). The court emphasized the legislative intent to protect the confidentiality of runaway youth records, noting that the Family Court Act § 1046's exceptions to privilege do not extend to runaway home records. The court granted the motion to quash, affirming that the cloak of confidentiality for runaway homes shall not be broken without the youth's written consent.

ConfidentialityRunaway and Homeless Youth ActSubpoena Duces TecumChild Abuse and NeglectFamily LawStatutory InterpretationDisclosure of RecordsYouth ServicesConfidential CommunicationsLegislative Intent
References
2
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. ADJ3974204
Regular
May 05, 2015

MARIA CORTINA vs. EDGEWATER CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, EVEREST NATIONAL COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's Petition for Reconsideration challenging a WCJ's order to quash deposition subpoenas. The defendant argues they were denied due process as they received no notice of the petition and thus no opportunity to oppose it. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order was not final but granted removal. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order, finding the defendant was improperly denied notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that discovery was stipulated to remain open.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to QuashDeposition SubpoenaProtective OrderLien ClaimantStipulationDiscoveryDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to Be Heard
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Stephen F.

In a neglect proceeding under Article 10 of the Family Court Act, the Beth Israel Medical Center moved to quash a subpoena for records of the respondents, citing confidentiality protections under 21 U.S. Code § 1175 for drug abuse prevention records. The court weighed the public interest in child protection against patient confidentiality. It granted the motion to quash concerning the father's records, noting no allegation of neglect due to his drug use. For the mother's records, the court found the existing evidence of her prior drug use (admissions to a caseworker, grandmothe, and a prior Family Court finding) would make the subpoenaed records merely cumulative, thus not meeting the 'good cause' standard for immediate disclosure. However, the court reserved its final decision on quashing the subpoena for the mother's records, awaiting testimony from the doctor who diagnosed the child with 'failure to thrive' to determine if the records are relevant to the cause of the condition.

Neglect ProceedingChild ProtectionConfidentiality of RecordsDrug Abuse TreatmentSubpoenaFamily CourtMedical Records DisclosurePhysician-Patient PrivilegeGood Cause StandardCumulative Evidence
References
6
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 14,475 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