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. ADJ8984860
Regular
Dec 30, 2020

AMADOR ORTIZ GARCIA vs. ISEC, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal of the WCJ's order quashing the deposition of Dr. Mouradian, an Agreed Medical Examiner. The Board found the record insufficient to evaluate the defendant's due process claim regarding the quashed deposition. Consequently, the order quashing the deposition was rescinded, and the case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings. This decision allows for a proper review of the issues and evidence.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical ExaminerWCJDue ProcessQuashed DepositionReport and RecommendationDiscovery ClosureMandatory Settlement ConferenceFindings of FactAdmitted Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
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. 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. 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. LAO 862841
Regular
Feb 28, 2008

BAHATI H. SALAS vs. LIVHOME, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and quashed the applicant's notice for a second deposition of Dr. Peterson. The Board found no good cause for a second deposition, as the applicant's representative was present at the first and failed to question Dr. Peterson on relevant matters despite having all necessary documentation. Allowing repeated depositions without changed circumstances would be neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contradicting the Board's mandate.

RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Due ProcessGood CauseCredibilitySubsequent DepositionLabor Code 4062.3Substantial Justice
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
Showing 1-10 of 697 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