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. ADJ7144283
Regular
Feb 04, 2015

RALPH LOYNACHAN vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

This case involved an applicant's petition for removal, seeking to address penalties for delayed treatment, which the WCJ denied due to a pending lien conference. The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition, finding it failed to meet the extraordinary standards for removal, especially since a status conference request was inappropriate with a scheduled hearing. The defendant's subsequent notice, construed as a removal or disqualification petition, was dismissed as untimely. The Board found the defendant's notice to be without merit, admonishing counsel against future similar filings.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJ GutierrezPenalties and SanctionsDelay of TreatmentCatastrophically Injured WorkerPetition for DisqualificationUntimely PetitionLabor Code Section 5311WCAB Rule 10452
References
2
Case No. ADJ16034585
Regular
Jan 19, 2023

ANNALISA PALMORE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB granted applicant's Petition for Removal to address a hybrid decision, applying the removal standard despite the presence of a threshold issue. While the WCAB affirmed the order to replace the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), it found the WCJ erred in deeming Dr. Scheinbaum's November 16, 2021 report inadmissible. The Board determined the report was admissible, as Dr. Scheinbaum personally conducted the evaluation and there was no violation of anti-ghostwriting statutes.

Petition for RemovalPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorAdmissibility of ReportAnti-ghostwriting statuteLabor Code section 4628(e)Threshold IssueInterlocutory FindingPrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration
References
7
Case No. ADJ9627339, ADJ9627342
Regular
Mar 26, 2018

Esteban Escobar vs. PRN AMBULANCE, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case concerns whether the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) met access standards for a chiropractor as a primary treating physician. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, overturning the WCJ's decision. The Board found the MPN must provide three chiropractors within 30 minutes or 15 miles of the applicant's residence or workplace. Since the MPN did not meet this closer standard, the applicant is authorized to select a chiropractor outside the MPN.

MPNchiropractorsprimary treating physicianaccess standardsreconsiderationremovalWCJAdministrative Director's Ruleexpedited hearingstipulate
References
4
Case No. ADJ9772365 (MF) ADJ10082338
Regular
Dec 06, 2016

Leonel Hidalgo vs. Hilbert Property Management, Technology Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, treating it instead as a Petition for Removal. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the Joint Findings of Fact, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This action was based on the Medical Director applying the incorrect standard when determining that an orthopedic QME panel was in the applicant's medical interest. The WCAB found that the Medical Director should have first determined if the applicant's chosen chiropractic specialty was medically or otherwise inappropriate, as required by Administrative Director Rule 31.5(a)(10).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelspecialty determinationorthopedicschiropracticMedical DirectorAdministrative Director RuleLabor CodePetition for Reconsideration
References
9
Case No. ADJ9618682
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

SOLEDAD GARCIA vs. LYONS MAGNUS, INC., AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant sought removal from a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order that required her to treat within the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). She argued the MPN lacked sufficient physiatrists, violating access standards, and sought to treat outside it. However, the Board denied removal, finding the applicant presented no evidence to support her claim that the MPN failed access standards or caused denial of treatment. The applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and a lack of evidence was the primary impediment to her case.

Petition for RemovalMedical Provider Network (MPN)Access StandardsPrimary Treating Physician (PTP)PhysiatristPain ManagementPetition DenialFindings of Fact and Order (F&O)Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Rule 9767.5
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor

The appellate court addressed appeals by the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) concerning judgments that annulled the DOL's determination that prevailing wages must be paid by Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. and Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. for refuse collection, specifically questioning if this applied to private buildings. The court first clarified that the actions were purely for declaratory judgment, not CPLR article 78 proceedings to annul determinations. Interpreting Labor Law § 231 (1), the court found that its plain language and legislative intent did not limit its application to public buildings. Consequently, the court concluded that employers are indeed obligated to pay prevailing wages to employees collecting garbage or refuse from both public and private buildings under municipal contracts. The judgments of the lower court were modified, and declarations were amended to reflect this obligation.

Prevailing WageLabor LawStatutory InterpretationPublic WorksBuilding Service WorkGarbage CollectionRefuse RemovalMunicipal ContractsDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. SAC 308622 SAC 308623 SAC 309351 SAC 323463 SAC 355784
Regular
May 09, 2007

DELETTE ZIEGELMANN-JACKSON vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The applicant sought removal to challenge the WCJ's deferral of a ruling on a petition to enforce a subpoena for personal items, arguing it unfairly required a second deposition. The Appeals Board dismissed removal in several cases where no issues were pending, but granted removal in case number SAC 355784. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order deferring the subpoena ruling, allowing for potential further depositions if warranted, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalPetition to EnforceSubpoena Duces TecumDeferred RulingIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 132aDiscriminationPrivacyDeposition
References
0
Case No. ADJ7191675
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

DONNA WESTLAKE vs. AUTO DEALERS COMPENSATION OF CALIFORNIA/MARIN LUXURY CARS LLC, Administered By INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal in this case. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and the Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from its denial. The defendant's petition was therefore denied based on the WCJ's report and the established legal standards for removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable injuryextraordinary remedySwedlowInc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Castro v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Bulmer v. Circle K Corp.
References
3
Case No. ADJ1943415 (LBO 0381428)
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

ADALBERTO JUAREZ vs. P.S. STIX INCORPORATED, NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for removal regarding an order to disclose a global settlement with a co-defendant. The Appeals Board found the procedural record deficient, preventing timely review of the removal petition. Ultimately, the Board granted removal on its own motion to address the "procedural morass." The Board rescinded the WCJ's order reinstating a prior minute order and dismissed the lien claimant's petition as moot, allowing for an in-camera review of the settlement agreement.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantGlobal SettlementConfidentiality clauseNon-Disclosure clauseCompromise and ReleaseMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJOrder Setting Aside
References
4
Case No. ADJ3548896 (SAC 0367105)
Regular

ROBERT HOZE vs. AIRGAS, INC.; AIRGRM, administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Robert Hoze's petition for removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result, and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. The Board found that Hoze failed to demonstrate these conditions were met in this case. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied, and the matter will proceed under the standard appeals process.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportDenial of RemovalAirgas Inc.
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,637 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