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. 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issued for Ferrone was to attend a trial date that had long passed, was not personally served, and had potentially been withdrawn.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. 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. ADJ10488034
Regular
May 07, 2018

GILDO BEITIA vs. CITY OF OAKLAND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition for removal, upholding an administrative law judge's order that limited the defendant's subpoenas for medical records. The defendant argued this order denied due process and improperly restricted discovery into non-industrial conditions affecting the applicant's alleged injuries. The WCAB found the subpoenas were impermissibly overbroad under existing precedent, which limits discovery to matters directly relevant to the claimed injuries. A dissenting opinion argued the limitations were too restrictive, especially for conditions like weight gain and hypertension which can have numerous causes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashCompensable Consequence InjuriesDiscovery LimitationsPatient-Litigant ExceptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeOverbroad SubpoenaDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ9268174
Regular
Jan 07, 2015

CHARLES BURNS vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of San Bernardino's petition for removal regarding a judge's order on subpoenas. The County sought to quash all subpoenas for records related to an inmate's claimed industrial injury, arguing the inmate was not an employee. The Board found the County failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order, even if the initial petition to quash was untimely. If the inmate is not an employee, the County will not be liable for costs related to the records or medical-legal expenses.

Subpoena Duces TecumPetition for RemovalOrder Quashing SubpoenaPenal Code Section 4017Labor Code Section 3370Inmate EmploymentRisk ManagementSan Bernardino Sheriff's DepartmentArrowhead Regional Medical CenterSubstantial Prejudice
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. ADJ6916816
Regular
Feb 05, 2013

SARAH HOAGLAND vs. COUNTY OF YUBA

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant, Sarah Hoagland, who was ordered to produce business records and tax returns. The Appeals Board granted her Petition for Removal, ruling that her tax returns are privileged and cannot be compelled. However, Hoagland must produce her business records, though she may seek protective orders for third-party privacy concerns or request in-camera review. Charity records were deemed outside the subpoena's scope and require a more specific demand.

Petition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumTax Records PrivilegeRevenue and Taxation Code Section 19282Webb v. Standard Oil Co.Schnabel v. Superior CourtPublic Policy ExceptionConfidential Financial InformationThird-Party Privacy RightsProtective Order
References
Case No. ADJ7785733, ADJ7632939
Regular
Oct 01, 2012

JOHN SHEK vs. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER OF OAKLAND, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

This case involves applicant's petitions for reconsideration and removal concerning administrative orders that sustained objections to witness subpoenas and excused a witness's appearance. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petitions as intermediate orders are not subject to such review. They also denied the removal petition, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board upheld the WCJ's decision to exclude undisclosed witnesses and excuse the excused witness based on the applicant's failure to comply with discovery and witness disclosure rules.

Pro sePetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCAB RulesSubpoena Duces TecumQuash SubpoenaExcuse Witness AppearanceMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureNewly Discovered Evidence
References
Case No. ADJ10939613, ADJ11371215
Regular
Jan 22, 2019

BRIAN COLLINS vs. CITY OF VACAVILLE, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding an order that quashed subpoenas for an applicant's former employer personnel and medical records. The Board found that Evidence Code sections 1043-1046, which govern discovery of police personnel records, are not applicable to routine workers' compensation discovery. Filing a workers' compensation claim places the applicant's medical condition at issue, making these records essential for the defense. Therefore, requiring strict adherence to the *Pitchess* procedure would be an absurd procedural hurdle in this context.

Workers' CompensationPetition for RemovalQuashed SubpoenasPolice Officer Personnel RecordsEvidence Code Sections 1043-1046Penal Code Sections 832.7-832.8Pitchess MotionRoutine DiscoveryMedical RecordsPersonnel Records
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