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. ADJ6682995
Regular
Apr 14, 2010

NESTOR QUEZADA vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Permissibly Self-Insured, adjusted by SEDGWICK

This case concerns a defendant's petition for removal challenging prior orders that mandated the issuance of Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding that the defendant's remedy was to file a petition for removal challenging the initial orders, not to later seek to set them aside. While affirming the core of the orders, the Board struck a provision allowing parties to obtain their own QME reports if panels were not issued, deeming it statutorily unsupported. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including the issuance of QME panels.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Ex ParteDue ProcessLabor Code Section 4062.2WCAB Rule 10280WCAB Rule 10324Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Medical Unit
References
0
Case No. ADJ2827250
Regular
Nov 22, 2016

LIZA GONZALEZ vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, YORK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal because removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant failed to demonstrate that denial of removal would cause such harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. While the defendant's petition for reconsideration was found timely, this did not alter the outcome regarding removal. The Board adopted the reasoning of the administrative law judge, denying the petition.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedydenial of removaltimelinessproof of servicelien conference
References
2
Case No. ADJ9653107
Regular
Jun 04, 2015

FERNANDO ALVARADO vs. FRIENDLY FRANCHISEES CORPORATION dba DFG RESTAURANTS, UNITED STATES F FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, CRUM & FORSTER

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendant, Friendly Franchisees Corporation. The defendant sought to remove an order that continued a workers' compensation hearing to allow the applicant to submit exhibits. The Appeals Board denied the petition, citing that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the judge's decision to allow the applicant to enter medical evidence, under CCP § 473, outweighed any alleged harm to the defendant and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationADJ9653107AOE/COE trialCal. Code of Civil Procedure § 473inadvertent omission
References
5
Case No. ADJ9854670
Regular
Dec 07, 2016

MAGDALENA RAMIREZ vs. VINYL TECHNOLOGY, INC.; SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Defendant Vinyl Technology's Petition for Removal seeking to set aside a trial date. Defendant argued insufficient discovery had been completed, but the Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal. Although the Board found the petition timely, it adopted the WCJ's reasoning for denying removal. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy and reconsideration will be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision issues.

Petition for RemovalMinute OrderTrial Date SettingDiscovery CompletionSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration AdequacyUntimely PetitionPersonal ServiceService by Mail
References
2
Case No. ADJ 10109726
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

Arnold Sayles vs. Marian Regional Medical Center, Sedgwick CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's first petition for removal as moot because the case was subsequently transferred to the district office the applicant desired. The WCAB denied the applicant's second petition for removal, which sought to overturn the administrative law judge's order closing discovery. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, both of the applicant's petitions were resolved by the WCAB.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJOrder Denying Petition for Change of VenueMandatory Settlement Conferenceclosing discoveryirreparable harmmootautomatic reassignmentWCAB Rule 10453
References
2
Case No. ADJ8875197
Regular
Mar 03, 2017

ALAYNE ANNE BRAND vs. MOUNT DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for removal filed on December 21, 2016, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The applicant's subsequent petition for removal, filed on January 4, 2017, seeking disqualification of the WCJ, was dismissed upon the applicant's attorney's withdrawal of that petition. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and reasoning in its decisions. The applicant also failed to comply with statutory requirements for removal requests.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ disqualificationsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedyLabor Code section 5311Appeals Board Rule 10452notice of withdrawal
References
2
Case No. ADJ369983 (SAC 0344063)
Regular
May 16, 2011

KENNETH HASKILL vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Removal as moot because the case was rescheduled for a mandatory settlement conference after the judge rescinded a trial setting. The Board also denied the lien claimant's Petition for Removal, finding the defendant had not waived its objection under Labor Code section 4903.5(c) and that the lien claimant failed to show irreparable harm. The Board reiterated that removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Petition for RemovalWCABLabor Code Section 4903.5(c)Declaration of Readiness to Proceedlien conferencecase in chiefmandatory settlement conferencewaiver of objectionirreparable harmextraordinary remedy
References
2
Case No. ADJ8661311, ADJ9607150
Regular
May 17, 2016

MARILYN RICHARD vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

This case involves Applicant Marilyn Richard's petition for removal to the Appeals Board. The Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that removal is an extraordinary remedy. Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal is not granted. Furthermore, reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy should an adverse decision arise later.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyFinal DecisionApplicantDefendant
References
1
Case No. ADJ1363789
Regular
Apr 02, 2016

SLOAN LAMIN vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for removal from a lien claimant. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated here. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy and admonished the lien claimant for filing a frivolous petition. The Board found no basis for removal and denied the petition.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJ reportSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harmReconsiderationFrivolous petitionLien claimantDuplicative petitionRescinding order
References
3
Case No. ADJ7274574
Regular
Mar 25, 2015

REBECCA WADE vs. LUCIA MAR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant's scheduled re-evaluation in Bakersfield was not an unreasonable geographic distance and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyPQME relocationreevaluationunreasonable geographic area
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 5,529 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