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. ADJ4155359 (OXN 0143340)
Regular
May 23, 2014

LISA SMITH vs. AGOURA WESTLAKE ANIMAL HOSPITAL, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant Agoura Westlake Animal Hospital sought removal from an order continuing the case to trial on psychiatric injury and sleeplessness, arguing they should have obtained a supplemental QME report first. The Appeals Board denied this petition, agreeing with the WCJ that the psychiatric injury issue was ready for trial as both parties had QME evaluations. The Board found no abuse of discretion in the WCJ treating the hearing as a Mandatory Settlement Conference rather than a status conference. One Commissioner dissented, believing removal should be granted to allow the supplemental QME evaluation due to applicant's refusal to attend and the lack of trial readiness for psychiatric injury.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Injury to PsycheSleeplessnessMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)Petition to CompelWCJ (Workers' Compensation Judge)Appeals BoardIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Showing 1-2 of 2 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