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. ADJ1327924
Regular
Jun 24, 2013

FRUCTUOSO CONTRERAS vs. RAYMOND INTERIOR SYSTEMS NORTH, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order taking a lien off calendar was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal, finding significant prejudice to the defendant. This was due to the lien claimant's failure to pay the required lien activation fee for a pre-2013 lien. Consequently, the Board ordered the lien dismissed with prejudice for this statutory violation.

Lien activation feePetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissal with prejudiceLabor Code section 4903.06Declaration of Readiness to ProceedLien conferenceInterlocutory orderFinal order
References
Case No. SAC 339624
Regular
Jul 21, 2008

GARY RAUSSER vs. CONSOLIDATED PERSONNEL CORPPORATION and CIGA, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, INC., LEGION INSURANCE

CIGA sought reconsideration and removal after the WCJ denied their request to join Benjamin Moore Paints, arguing it was a necessary defendant. However, the Board dismissed CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration, finding the order denying joinder was not a final order, and denied the Petition for Removal, as CIGA failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Benjamin Moore was already a party defendant, making further joinder unnecessary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJInterlocutory Procedural OrderFinal OrderDue Process RightsGeneral/Special EmploymentJoinder of Defendants
References
Case No. ADJ9585531
Regular
Aug 28, 2017

Andres Reyes vs. PT WELDING INC.; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Applicant Andres Reyes's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory discovery order. The WCAB also denied Applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and directed the parties to resolve the discovery dispute through the Administrative Director. The original order denied Applicant's motion to quash a subpoena for his entire school records from iLearn Institute, which Applicant argued was irrelevant and invaded his privacy. Applicant's petition was dismissed as reconsideration is improper for non-final orders, and his removal petition was denied as he failed to demonstrate significant prejudice.

WACABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderInterlocutory OrderDiscovery OrderMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumPrivacySignificant Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ10290065
Regular
Nov 20, 2019

HOWARD ROSS (deceased), SUSAN G. ROSS vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Permissibly Self-Insured; CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Defendant's Petition for Removal. The Defendant sought to remove an order denying their Petition to Change Venue without prejudice, arguing significant prejudice and irreparable harm. The WCAB found the Defendant failed to demonstrate such harm and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the case will proceed without removal, allowing discovery and hearings to continue.

Petition for RemovalVenue PetitionIndustrial InjuryAsbestos ExposureSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJAppeals BoardExtraordinary RemedyDiscovery
References
Case No. ADJ9400578
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

GERRIT VELD vs. CLIPPINGER CHEVROLET, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE, INC., SAFECO INSURANCE

Defendant sought removal of this workers' compensation case, alleging the WCJ's statements showed bias against them and would cause prejudice. The Appeals Board denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ that the statements were preliminary remarks based on submitted evidence. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which the defendant failed to establish. Defendant also did not follow proper disqualification procedures.

Petition for RemovalWCJ biasirreparable harmpreliminary remarksformal disqualificationsignificant prejudiceWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injuryleukemiamechanic
References
Case No. ADJ8310199
Regular
May 11, 2016

MARTIN MENDEZ vs. SC STAFFING SOLUTIONS, ULTIMATE PERSONNEL SERVICES, AIG for NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO.

Defendant AIG sought removal of an order joining it as a party, arguing prejudice and irreparable harm due to a prior dismissal without new evidence. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify this discretionary remedy. The Board cited that AIG failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition to remove the case to the Board was denied.

Petition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeParty DefendantReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedySignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmIndependent ReviewWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5310
References
Case No. ADJ10249111
Regular
Jul 29, 2016

Steven R. Crosby vs. DWB Security Services

The applicant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it sought review of a non-final order dismissing the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF) without prejudice. The Board treated this as a petition for removal, granted it, and rescinded the dismissal order. This action was taken due to the potential for significant prejudice and irreparable harm to the applicant, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board adopted the WCJ's recommendation that the UEBTF was improperly dismissed.

Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalNon-final OrderFinal OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmRescindedReturned to Trial LevelAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ1260866 (LAO 0864160) ADJ985895 (LAO 0864161)
Regular
Dec 28, 2011

GERALD MAYES vs. BIG LOTS; SEDGWICK CMS

The Applicant, Gerald Mayes, sought removal of a trial setting order, arguing the defendant's readiness declaration was insufficient and his medical condition had significantly worsened post-AME. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for removal. This dismissal was primarily based on the applicant's failure to verify the petition, a mandatory requirement. Even if verified, the WCAB would have denied the petition as the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionDeclaration of ReadinessPermanent and StationaryAME ReportCervical ConditionSurgeryIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceMinute Order
References
Case No. ADJ7728639 ADJ7728660 ADJ7759971
Regular
Mar 01, 2012

CHAD HABERMAN vs. THE SUN VALLEY GROUP

This case involves the defendant's Petition for Removal after a WCJ denied their request to compel a continued deposition of the applicant in Oregon. The defendant argued prejudice due to potential travel costs for their attorney if the deposition remained in California. However, the Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy and reconsideration would be adequate to address future decisions on discovery. The parties were encouraged to resolve discovery disputes informally.

Petition for RemovalPetition to CompelPetition to Quashworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJapplicant's depositionproduction of documentsGrant's PassOregonEureka
References
Case No. ADJ9754409
Regular
Feb 16, 2017

ABEL PEREZ (Deceased), LYDIA ARREDONDO vs. AFFHOLDER, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL

In this workers' compensation case involving a deceased employee, the applicant sought removal of a WCJ's order setting the matter for trial. The applicant claimed the order would cause significant prejudice and irreparable harm. The Appeals Board denied the removal petition, emphasizing that such requests are extraordinary and require a showing of substantial harm. The Board found no evidence of irreparable prejudice, noting the applicant can raise issues at trial and also cautioned the applicant's attorney about potential misrepresentations.

Petition for RemovalIndustrial InjuryDeath ClaimWCJMinute OrderPre-trial ConferenceSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmSanctionsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,544 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