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. ADJ8310199
Regular
May 11, 2016

MARTIN MENDEZ vs. SC STAFFING SOLUTIONS, ULTIMATE PERSONNEL SERVICES, AIG for NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO.

Defendant AIG sought removal of an order joining it as a party, arguing prejudice and irreparable harm due to a prior dismissal without new evidence. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify this discretionary remedy. The Board cited that AIG failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition to remove the case to the Board was denied.

Petition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeParty DefendantReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedySignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmIndependent ReviewWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5310
References
2
Case No. ADJ9477473
Regular
Mar 11, 2016

JOHN STRINGER vs. DEFENDER DIRECT, TRAVELERS PROPERTY & CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal concerning an expedited hearing order. The applicant argued the WCJ's order to file documents and brief was improper and caused prejudice and irreparable harm. The Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only for substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, neither of which was sufficiently demonstrated. The Board concluded that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is eventually issued.

Petition for RemovalExpedited HearingAdministrative Law JudgeSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDefendant's AnswerReport of WCJ
References
4
Case No. ADJ7479755
Regular
Feb 24, 2015

DAVID LOPEZ vs. PATTERSON LIFT TRUCKS, SPARTA INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant sought removal to vacate a finding that vocational expert reports lacked substantial evidence due to not observing the applicant's visible foot injury. The Board found no such prejudice or irreparable harm, deeming reconsideration an adequate remedy. The Board also noted a processing delay due to a file misplacement.

Petition for RemovalVocational Rehabilitation ExpertSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code Section 5502(d)(3)Vocational ExpertsAMA Guides
References
12
Case No. ADJ8255415, ADJ8684388, ADJ8255413
Regular
Dec 15, 2015

LERHONE WILLIAMS vs. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES-IN HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding it failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the defendant's petition did not meet the extraordinary criteria for removal. Additionally, the defendant's attorneys were admonished for violating WCAB rules by attaching unnecessary documents. The WCJ recommended denial due to the petition's silence on prejudice, irreparable harm, and inadequacy of reconsideration.

Petition for RemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10842(c)SanctionsPanel QMECognitive ImpairmentNeuropsychological IssuesPsychology Panel
References
2
Case No. ADJ1779127 (MON 0234828); ADJ256878 (MON 0304707) ADJ949225 (MON 0333849) ADJ1998710 (MON 0228630) ADJ2829762 (MON 0228631) ADJ1620819 (MON 0228628) ADJ4115030 (MON 0228632) ADJ1386897 (MON 0228633) ADJ4577376 (MON 0228629) ADJ2634948 (LAO 0723384)
Regular
Mar 15, 2011

MURIAL LAZARUS vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, which sought to reverse an order to return multiple cases to Agreed Medical Evaluators. The defendant argued irreparable harm from paying for additional evaluations and prejudice from delays. The Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which are required for removal as it is an extraordinary remedy. The Board also noted logistical details regarding venue for the applicant's ten cases.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAgreed Medical EvaluatorsOff CalendarSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedVenue TransferAdministrative Law JudgeDefendant
References
2
Case No. ADJ9823239
Regular
Apr 05, 2016

JILL HEISER vs. PEDDER, HESSELTINE, WALKER & TOTH, LLP, STATE FARM INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant, Pedder, Hesseltine, Walker & Toth, LLP. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration is inadequate. The WCAB adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, finding no such prejudice or irreparable harm shown. Furthermore, the WCAB admonished defense counsel for improperly attaching documents already in the adjudication file to the petition.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequacy of RemedyAdjudication FileWCJ ReportPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerReplacement Panel
References
2
Case No. ADJ7744557
Regular
Feb 06, 2017

THOMAS RICHARD GUTZWILLER vs. RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns a defendant's petition for removal to prevent a deposition of their claims examiner regarding medical treatment issues. The defendant argued substantial prejudice and irreparable harm due to expense, mootness, and impact on the examiner's time, also alleging bad faith discovery tactics. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied removal, emphasizing it is an extraordinary remedy. The Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Petition for RemovalDepositionMedical Treatment IssuesSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMoot IssueBad Faith DiscoverySettlement DemandsWCJ ReportExtraordinary Remedy
References
2
Case No. ADJ9754409
Regular
Feb 16, 2017

ABEL PEREZ (Deceased), LYDIA ARREDONDO vs. AFFHOLDER, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL

In this workers' compensation case involving a deceased employee, the applicant sought removal of a WCJ's order setting the matter for trial. The applicant claimed the order would cause significant prejudice and irreparable harm. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition, emphasizing that such requests are extraordinary and require a showing of substantial harm. The Board found no evidence of irreparable prejudice, noting the applicant can raise issues at trial and also cautioned the applicant's attorney about potential misrepresentations.

Petition for RemovalIndustrial InjuryDeath ClaimWCJMinute OrderPre-trial ConferenceSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSanctionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ11085852
Regular
Nov 02, 2018

DEONTE WALKER vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES

The applicant sought removal of a Notice of Hearing alleging prejudice from a full-day trial instead of an expedited hearing for his admitted industrial injury to the psyche and stress. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, emphasizing that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of irreparable harm. The WCAB found that the scheduled trial was justified by the complexity and witness testimony, and an expedited hearing was not guaranteed to be earlier. Therefore, the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm.

Petition for RemovalIndustrial InjuryPsycheStressWCJNotice of HearingExpedited HearingFull-Day TrialSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
2
Case No. ADJ1396723
Regular
Nov 19, 2015

JESUS MENDOZA SANCHEZ vs. ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR

The applicant sought removal from an order requiring a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in nephrology, arguing it would cause prejudice and irreparable harm. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition, citing that removal is an extraordinary remedy and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, which found that the prior QME in internal medicine/endocrinology recommended a nephrology evaluation for permanent disability assessment. The denial was based on the failure to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and the procedural adequacy of reconsideration.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorNephrologyEndocrinologySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationFindings and OrderMedical Dispute
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,120 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