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. ADJ2433904
Regular
Oct 10, 2011

ANGELA MARTINEZ vs. EL MONTE CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves two lien claimants, Vogel and Interpreting Group, Inc., whose liens were dismissed after their representative failed to appear at a rescheduled lien trial. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the representative claimed they never received notice of the rescheduled trial, which was moved to an earlier date. Given the lack of conclusive evidence of notice and the unique circumstances of the rescheduling, the Board rescinded the dismissal orders. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to adjudicate the lien claims on their merits.

WCABlien claimantsreconsiderationNotice of Intention to Dismisslien trialhearing representativestipulated awardpermanent disabilityfuture medical treatmentEAMS
References
0
Case No. ADJ10044579
Regular
Dec 20, 2017

NEVITA BAILEY vs. FIRST GROUP AMERICA, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant filed a Petition for Removal after the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the applicant's failure to appear at a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC). The ALJ's notice stipulated dismissal unless the applicant appeared at a rescheduled MSC, which was subsequently taken off calendar due to the removal petition. The Appeals Board denied removal, finding no substantial prejudice as the applicant's failure to appear at the rescheduled MSC was rendered moot by the rescheduling. The Board also noted that a Notice of Intent to Dismiss should not be issued for a *potential* future failure to appear, but rather based on an actual occurrence.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMandatory Settlement ConferenceAdministrative Law JudgeNotice of Intent to DismissWCAB Rule 10563WCAB Rule 10562substantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsideration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rumsey v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Plaintiffs, employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services and military reservists, challenged Departmental Directive # 2212, which allowed the rescheduling of their regular days off to coincide with military drills. They claimed this violated their rights under federal and state military laws and the Equal Protection Clause, arguing it discriminated against them by not requiring similar rescheduling for other types of leave. The defendants asserted the directive was necessary to address staffing shortages and prevent abuse of military leave, noting that pass days were routinely rescheduled for various other reasons. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the directive did not constitute discrimination, as it did not require 'special accommodations' for reservists beyond what was afforded to other employees, consistent with the precedent set in Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

Military LeaveEmployment RightsWork ScheduleDiscrimination ClaimSummary Judgment MotionCollective BargainingSeniority RightsDepartmental DirectiveFederal LawState Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ1535496 (VNO 0558277)
Regular
Feb 06, 2012

MARIA GUTIERREZ vs. OAKDALE HEIGHTS MANAGEMENT, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant petitioned for removal to object to an order setting trial, but later agreed to a Compromise and Release during trial. Defendant then withdrew its Petition for Removal, which the Board granted. The Board dismissed the petition without prejudice, allowing the WCJ to act on the C&R. If the C&R is rejected and trial is rescheduled, defendant may refile the petition.

Petition for RemovalCompromise and ReleaseWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalAdministrative Law JudgeApprovalRe-set for trialWithout prejudiceWausau Insurance Company
References
0
Case No. ADJ8664704
Regular
Sep 02, 2013

SYLVIA THOMAS vs. TARZANA TREATMENT CENTERS, ADMINSURE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior order that took the case off calendar. The Appeals Board agreed that the June 18, 2013 hearing was a priority conference and should not have been removed from the calendar without further proceedings. The case is now returned to the trial level to be rescheduled for a priority conference and subsequent trial once discovery is complete.

Petition for RemovalOrder RescindedReturned to Trial LevelPriority ConferenceOff CalendarDiscovery CompleteWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Report and RecommendationPermissibly Self-InsuredAdminSure
References
0
Case No. ADJ2617573
Regular
Dec 17, 2010

LUIS H. MARTINEZ vs. CITY OF INDIO, YORK UPLAND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. The defendant sought to reverse an order that deferred rulings on discovery and other motions to the trial judge at a mandatory settlement conference. The Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to the defendant, as required for removal, despite the defendant's claim of incomplete discovery. The case is returned to the trial level for rescheduling.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureAgreed Medical EvaluatorHeart-HypertensionCumulative TraumaPolice OfficerLabor Code section 5502(e)(3)WCAB Rule 10843
References
0
Case No. ADJ9251260
Regular
Jul 11, 2014

JULIANNE BEAUPRE vs. NESTLE USA, INC., AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

In *Beaupre v. Nestle USA, Inc.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. The Board found that the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The applicant's deposition had been rescheduled, and the Board noted that any objection to a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed would be addressed at that time. Issues of sanctions and penalties were deferred to the WCJ.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdequate RemedyWCJ ReportDepositionDeclaration of ReadinessObjection to DOR
References
4
Case No. LAO 0824629
Regular
Aug 16, 2007

R. MARTINEZ vs. HILTON HOTEL, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding an earlier order that had taken the case off calendar over the applicant's objection. The Board agreed that the case should have proceeded to trial, as the defendant improperly filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed while proceedings were suspended. The matters are now returned to the trial level for rescheduling, with the issue of defense witnesses deferred to the trial judge.

RemovalPetition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDiscoveryWitnessesOrder Suspending ProceedingsRescindedTrial LevelWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ6860472
Regular
Feb 11, 2011

MARINA ALVAREZ vs. 4 YOU APPAREL, INC., THE HARTFORD, Employers Compensation Insurance Company (ECIC)

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted The Hartford's Petition for Removal to address procedural issues before trial. A new defendant, ECIC, was joined late, preventing adequate discovery and participation. Additionally, Hartford has not yet received a qualified medical evaluator panel for psychiatric evaluations due to a defective request. Consequently, the trial was redesignated as a priority conference, and the case will be rescheduled for trial once discovery is complete.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorsAgreed Medical EvaluatorJoinder of partyCumulative traumaMandatory Settlement ConferenceLabor Code section 5500.5(c)Priority conferenceMedical Unit
References
2
Case No. ADJ2123920 (SBR 0330534) ADJ4017300 (SBR 0331860)
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

JAVIER HERRERA vs. WICKES FURNITURE, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's minute order continuing the lien trial was not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's arguments regarding evidence exclusion and delay are to be addressed at the rescheduled trial. The defendant remains able to object to exhibits and raise issues of sanctions with the WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalLien trialPre-trial conference statementRule 10629Final orderLabor Code section 5900Substantive rightsIrreparable harm
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 45 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