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. ADJ3953416
Regular
Mar 07, 2013

CLENNON MOORE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order vacating a trial date. The Board also denied the defendant's petition to remove the applicant's non-attorney representative, Danny Boyd, from appearing, despite Boyd's history of abusive conduct. However, the Board issued a stern warning to Boyd that future misconduct will result in proceedings to remove his privilege to represent parties. The Board noted Boyd's potential violation of paralegal regulations and advised him to ensure compliance.

WCABPetition for RemovalHearing RepresentativeLabor Code Section 4907Cease and Desist OrderAbusive ConductNon-attorney RepresentativeSB 899Labor Code Section 5814Medical Mileage
References
3
Case No. ADJ9426494
Regular
Jun 10, 2015

BARBARA SWENSON vs. COMPASS HEALTH, MURPHY AND BEANE, INC.

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the applicant sought interview transcripts and statements of defense witnesses. The judge initially ordered the defendant to produce all such materials. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the order was overbroad and violated due process by failing to account for work product and attorney-client privilege. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, amending the original order. The amended order requires the defendant to provide requested materials, excluding those protected by privilege, for which a privilege log must be filed.

Petition for RemovalInterview TranscriptsWitness StatementsWork ProductAttorney-Client PrivilegePrivilege LogDue ProcessOverbroad OrderAppeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ6784736
Regular
May 24, 2010

CYNTHIA ARMANDO vs. ENDODONTIC ASSOCIATES CORP., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an order compelling production of claims file documents. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the original order, and issued a new order. The new order requires the defendant to produce non-privileged portions of the claims file and witness statements, and to describe any privileged documents separately. The Board also clarified that statutory privilege provisions, including attorney work product, are applicable in workers' compensation proceedings.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationClaims Investigation FileAttorney Workproduct PrivilegeWitness StatementsInterim OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmAbsolute Work ProductQualified Work Product
References
7
Case No. ADJ4227582
Regular
Nov 18, 2011

BOBBY CLEMENTS vs. GEORGE REED, INC., TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves an applicant seeking removal of a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) after an order compelling disclosure of specific records. The applicant claimed bias, Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and privacy rights for corporate records. The Appeals Board denied the petition, clarifying that removal requires more than disagreement with a ruling and that the Fifth Amendment privilege is waived when a party initiates litigation and the requested information is relevant to their claim. The Board found no evidence of bias and ruled that the applicant could not use the privilege to obstruct relevant discovery essential for the defendant's defense.

Petition for RemovalWCJ biasFifth Amendmentself-incriminationevidentiary privilegespatient-litigant exceptionwaiverdiscoveryadministrative law judgeworkers' compensation
References
9
Case No. ADJ9674251
Regular
Apr 17, 2015

LAURA MALED vs. DIAMOND LEARNING CENTER, INC., AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, JAMI HAMEL DE LA CERDA, DANIEL DE LA CERDA, NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Laura Maled sought removal after the WCJ deferred ruling on a motion to quash a subpoena. The subpoena requested records from Diamond Learning Center, Inc., which AMTRUST, its insurer, claimed were overbroad and privileged. Applicant argued the deferral prejudiced her ability to conduct necessary discovery. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the deferral caused substantial prejudice and irreparable harm. The case was remanded for a status conference to facilitate discovery resolution or a ruling on the motion to quash.

Petition for RemovalPetition for Order QuashingSubpoena Duces TecumAttorney-Client PrivilegeAttorney Work Product DoctrineDiscovery DisputeIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceWCJ DeferralAmended Application
References
0
Case No. ADJ8396609
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

KELLY SNOW vs. HEALTH NET, INC., SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding prior orders that compelled the release of her psychotherapist's records and quashed subpoenas. The applicant argued these records were privileged psychotherapist-patient communications, and the therapist was not a physician or psychologist, thus their records were not discoverable for QME review. The Board found that while the psychotherapist-patient privilege exists, it is subject to waiver when mental condition is placed in issue by the patient, but this waiver is limited to relevant records. The case was returned to the trial level to determine if Ms. Bradley's records are relevant to the disclosed psychiatric injury or unrelated.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Quash Subpoena Duces TecumPsychotherapist-patient privilegeQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 3209.3Administrative Director Rule 35Evidence Code section 1010Holder of the privilegeEvidence Code section 1013Evidence Code section 1014
References
3
Case No. ADJ8424952
Regular
Sep 10, 2014

ALFONSO CRUZ vs. SIERRA CIRCUITS, INC.; THE HARTFORD

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal regarding deposition questions about medical history and insurance coverage. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition in part, allowing questions about medical insurance and personal doctors, as these are discoverable under CCP § 2017.010. However, the WCAB found questions about past medical treatment paid by others and prior hospitalizations to be overbroad, as they could infringe on the physician-patient privilege regarding unrelated conditions. The Board ordered the applicant to answer specific questions but requires defendants to reframe broader questions concerning medical history to avoid privileged information.

Petition for RemovalFifth AmendmentFirst Amendmentphysician-patient privilegeconfidential communicationindustrial injurymedical historydeposition questionsCode of Civil Procedure section 2017.010Evidence Code sections 990
References
3
Case No. ADJ607600 (SFO 0411600)
Regular
May 27, 2011

DELMAR GREEN vs. STATE ROOFING SYSTEMS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, HIH AMERICA COMPENSATION & LIABILITY INSURANCE CO., INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) sought to compel the production of documents from Recovery Resources, Inc. to determine if a lien assigned by St. Francis Memorial Hospital to Recovery was a covered claim under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9)(B). The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) previously quashed a subpoena duces tecum (SDT) seeking these documents, citing privilege and overbreadth. The Appeals Board granted CIGA's Petition for Removal, rescinded the order quashing the subpoena, and returned the matter to the trial level. The Board ruled that CIGA has the right to discover evidence of the contractual relationship to prove a legal assignment, but must avoid privileged material and burdensome requests.

CIGAPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumQuashedAssignmentChose in actionInsurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9)(B)Privileged materialAttorney work productAttorney-client communication
References
13
Case No. ADJ7196912
Regular
Jul 24, 2012

BOBBY BROWN vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP

The defendants sought reconsideration or removal of a prior order allowing broad discovery of their claims file. The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the prior order was not final, but granted removal to admit specific exhibits. The Board affirmed the original order's allowance of discovery of the claims file, except for privileged material, and returned the case for further proceedings. A dissenting opinion argued the discovery was overly broad and not sufficiently relevant to justify the burden on the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationFindings and OrderClaims FileSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product Doctrine
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,835 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