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. 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. 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. 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
Case No. ADJ4385917 (AHM 0070664)
Regular
May 10, 2010

CYNTHIA BECKER vs. ST. JUDE MEDICAL CENTER, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the order denying their motion to quash subpoenas was not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, stating there was no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable injury. The defendant had argued the WCJ erred in denying their motion to quash subpoenas for dental records and other facilities. The Board concluded that any objections could be raised later if costs were incurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalMotion to QuashSubpoenas Duces TecumInterlocutory Procedural OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
7
Case No. ADJ10745219
Regular
Jun 07, 2017

SUSHILA CHAND vs. MACY'S, MACY'S COPRORATE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Macy's petition for removal of an order denying their motion to quash a subpoena. Macy's argued the subpoena was improper because the applicant failed to request records directly from them first, violating a specific rule. The Board found Macy's claim of irreparable harm unconvincing, explaining the cited rule pertains to payment for copying services, not the validity of the subpoena itself. The proper recourse for Macy's alleged violation is to object to copying bills, not to quash the subpoena.

Removal petitionQuash subpoena duces tecumAdministrative Director Rule 9982WCAB Rule 10848Injured workerEmployer recordsMedical recordsCopying servicesIrreparable harmWCJ report and recommendation
References
2
Case No. ADJ10447246
Regular
Dec 12, 2019

Corliss Anderson vs. WAL-MART STORES INC, YORK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration and denied her Petition for Removal. The applicant sought reconsideration of an order suspending her petition to quash a subpoena duces tecum due to missing documentation. The Board found that the order was not a final order, making reconsideration improper, and that removal was not warranted as the applicant could still cure the deficiencies. Therefore, the applicant's requests were dismissed and denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumPetition to QuashOrder Suspending ActionFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery IssuePrejudice
References
8
Case No. ADJ7742588
Regular
Jun 04, 2025

ALEJANDRA BERUMEN vs. AIS, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY/THE HARTFORD, AON CORP, CNA INSURANCE/SEDGWICK CMS

Applicant Alejandra Berumen filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal after a WCJ granted defendant CNA Insurance's Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, arguing lack of notice and irreparable harm. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, determining the WCJ's order was an interlocutory procedural decision, not a final order. They also denied the petition for removal, finding insufficient evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board noted the issue could be revisited and encouraged the parties to resolve outstanding matters, including properly identifying defendants and periods of coverage.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMotion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecumpending determination of coverageinterlocutory procedural issuesubstantial evidenceirreparable harmnotice of intentionAdjudication NumberWCJ Report and Recommendation
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 14,189 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