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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
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. ADJ2637562 (AHM 0384910) ADJ3615654 (AHM 0384911)
Regular
Jul 01, 2011

ABENAA APPAUH vs. ARROWHEAD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Abenaa Appauh's Petitions for Removal seeking to overturn an order quashing a subpoena duces tecum. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found the petitions lacked merit and failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The judge noted that a petition for reconsideration would be an adequate remedy after a final decision. Additionally, the petitions were deemed defective due to a lack of proper verification.

Petitions for RemovalOrder DenyingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubpoena Duces TecumQuashing SubpoenaLabor Code §5310WCJVerified PetitionAmended PetitionDeclaration
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. 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. VNO 536198
Regular
Apr 07, 2008

JUAN ALVAREZ vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; c/o SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order denying their motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum. This decision was based on the absence of the subpoena itself in the case file, preventing the Board from understanding the scope of the requested documents or the parties' arguments. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to obtain necessary documentation and clarify the issues.

Petition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumQuashOverbroadVagueAmbiguousOppressiveBurdensomePrivacyConfidentiality
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. AHM 0141207
Regular
Jul 13, 2007

JOHN MAGINNIS vs. REED ELSIVIER, CRAWFORD & COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted a petition for removal, partially quashing a subpoena duces tecum issued to Reed Elsivier. The Board found that the applicant failed to provide proper notice to non-party employees whose employment records were sought, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.6, and that some categories were overbroad or irrelevant. The subpoena was affirmed for categories relevant to the applicant's claim and potentially containing disability-related information, but quashed for those violating privacy rights or being overly broad.

RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumPetition to QuashCode of Civil Procedure section 1985.6Non-party employeesRight of privacyEmployment recordsOverbroadIndustrial injuryPsych/stress
References
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
Case No. ADJ6979005
Regular
Mar 13, 2012

DOMINIQUE ALLEN vs. NORDSTROM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Nordstrom's petition for reconsideration because the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) order quashing most of Nordstrom's subpoenas duces tecum was not a final order. Nordstrom sought records to investigate an alleged psyche injury, but the ALJ found its requests overbroad and not sufficiently relevant. While the ALJ quashed most subpoenas, it allowed Nordstrom to reissue narrower requests focused on the admitted knee injury and alleged psyche injury. The WCAB found no abuse of discretion, noting that discovery should be balanced with applicant's privacy rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OpinionSubpoena Duces Tecum (SDT)OverbroadRelevanceDue ProcessDiscoveryPsychiatric ClaimPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
Showing 1-10 of 194 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