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. ADJ11072332
Regular
Jan 03, 2023

CHETAN THAKER vs. AON HEWITT CORPORATION, CNA CLAIM PLUS, INC., SEGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ), who concluded that the applicant failed to prove an industrial injury arose out of and occurred in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The WCJ found that the reports of the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Dr. Pretsky, constituted substantial medical evidence, despite the petitioner's disagreements regarding the diagnosis. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient justification for newly discovered evidence or specific arguments regarding factual or statutory errors.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDENIEDWCJ REPORTSUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGSUBSTANTIAL MEDICAL EVIDENCEPQMEPSYCHE INJURYAOE/COELABOR CODE
References
Case No. ADJ10745219
Regular
Jun 07, 2017

SUSHILA CHAND vs. MACY'S, MACY'S COPRORATE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Macy's petition for removal of an order denying their motion to quash a subpoena. Macy's argued the subpoena was improper because the applicant failed to request records directly from them first, violating a specific rule. The Board found Macy's claim of irreparable harm unconvincing, explaining the cited rule pertains to payment for copying services, not the validity of the subpoena itself. The proper recourse for Macy's alleged violation is to object to copying bills, not to quash the subpoena.

Removal petitionQuash subpoena duces tecumAdministrative Director Rule 9982WCAB Rule 10848Injured workerEmployer recordsMedical recordsCopying servicesIrreparable harmWCJ report and recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ8436843
Regular
Jun 15, 2015

KEITH VOELKER vs. G.S.E. CONSTRUCTION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant seeking to quash subpoenas duces tecum issued by the defendant. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal in part, quashing the subpoena for personal financial information from a golf course as irrelevant. However, the Board affirmed the denial of the motion to quash subpoenas for medical records, finding that the applicant placed his medical condition and its consequences in issue. The Board also clarified that an affidavit showing good cause is not required for a deposition subpoena seeking only business records for copying.

Subpoena Duces TecumPetition for RemovalMotion to QuashPhysician-Patient PrivilegePrivacy RightsCompensable ConsequencesApportionment of Permanent DisabilityCode of Civil ProcedureBusiness Records ExceptionGood Cause
References
Case No. ADJ8071753
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

RAFAEL CASTRO vs. VALLEY CREST COMPANIES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, quashing the applicant's subpoena duces tecum. The Board found the subpoena's request for "any and all logs" to be vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Consequently, the employer cannot be compelled to produce documents under such an unclear demand. The applicant must issue a more specific subpoena if he wishes to obtain particular documents.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Quash SubpoenaSubpoena Duces TecumWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLandskaperIndustrial InjuryVague SubpoenaAmbiguous SubpoenaIntelligent Response
References
Case No. ADJ4242717 (VNO 0420852) ADJ7278860
Regular
Sep 28, 2016

PHILLIP WILLIAMS vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION - CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding a WCJ's order compelling former attorney John Ferrone to attend trial as a witness. The Board found that the only subpoena issued for Ferrone was to attend a trial date that had long passed, was not personally served, and had potentially been withdrawn. Compelling a witness's attendance requires a valid subpoena, and no such valid subpoena existed for the current trial date.

Petition for RemovalAttorney-Client PrivilegeSubpoenaWCJ OrderFraud or MistakeStipulation and OrderMotion to QuashAttorney as WitnessCompelled AttendancePercipient Witness
References
Case No. ANA 0400591
Regular
May 05, 2008

ALEXANDER SPITZ vs. PEPSI BOTTLING COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded a prior order from the administrative law judge, and quashed the applicant's subpoena duces tecum. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested documents and that the protracted proceedings surrounding the subpoena were neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contrary to public policy. The applicant may issue a new, narrowly drawn subpoena if future disputes necessitate document production.

RemovalPetition for RemovalQuash Subpoena Duces TecumCode of Civil Procedure Section 1985(b)Good CauseMaterialityPublic PolicySubstantial JusticeExpeditiouslyInexpensively
References
Case No. ADJ9319169 ADJ9319170
Regular
Aug 07, 2018

MARIA DE LOS ANGELES DE SAUCEDO vs. IRONWOOD PACKAGING, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review a decision that invalidated a lien claimant's subpoenas and imposed sanctions. The WCAB found that while the lien claimant's service of subpoenas was defective, it did not cause prejudice or violate due process, as the defendant had notice and opportunity to object. Therefore, the subpoenas were deemed valid and the lien claimant's lien can proceed. The WCAB rescinded the original orders and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings to analyze the lien claim and revisit the sanctions.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantSubpoena Duces TecumLabor Code section 4055.2Sanctions OrderTorres v. AJC SandblastingMedical-Legal ExpensesContested ClaimExplanation of ReviewPre-trial Conference Statement
References
Case No. ADJ7028178
Regular
Mar 18, 2013

LEOBARDO CHAVEZ vs. VAN ACKER CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATES, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) order quashing subpoenas duces tecum. The Board found the subpoenas overly broad, duplicative, and burdensome, requesting extensive records related to surveillance beyond what had already been provided. While acknowledging the applicant was not afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to the initial motion to quash, the Board determined no substantial prejudice occurred as the applicant could issue a more narrowly drawn subpoena. The denial ensures the applicant must refashion a reasonable request for surveillance records.

Petition for RemovalQuashed Subpoenas Duces TecumOverbroadDuplicativeBurdensomeSurveillance RecordsPrivileged DocumentsInvestigator's Field NotesOpportunity to be HeardSubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ10091615
Regular
Oct 20, 2016

Joan De Silva vs. Mission Hospital, SEDGWICK 14442 ORANGE

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Mission Hospital's Petition for Removal, rescinding an order that denied their motion to quash two subpoenas. The Board found the subpoenas overbroad and potentially sought documents protected by Evidence Code section 1157 (hospital peer review) and HIPAA (confidential patient information). Furthermore, the Board determined the subpoenas lacked sufficient specificity regarding the scope of records requested. The case was returned to the trial level for a hearing to address these concerns and determine the appropriate scope of discovery.

Petition for RemovalMotion to Quash SubpoenaSubpoena Duces TecumEvidence Code Section 1157HIPAAPeer Review CommitteesInfectious Control ReportsOperating RoomRedactionOverbroad Discovery
References
Case No. ADJ3820883 (SBR 0332538)
Regular
Dec 24, 2008

RUBY JONES vs. STATE DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's orders compelling Randall Hollien's deposition and quashed the subpoena for records. The Board found the petition for removal timely and directed parties to identify the preparer of a disputed "Kunz" study before SCIF could properly subpoena the author. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

RemovalHearing RepresentativeAttorney-Client PrivilegeSubpoenaDiscovery OrderCMS NetworkRandall HollienComparative Kunz StudyLien ClaimantWCJ
References
Showing 1-10 of 100 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