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. ADJ8015424 ADJ8102669
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

ESPERANZA SANCHEZ vs. MCDONALDS/MJD'S, INC.; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by an applicant in a workers' compensation matter. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was not taken from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liabilities. Furthermore, the Board denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant's petition for reconsideration was therefore dismissed, and removal was denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenying RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory DecisionsProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsSubstantive QuestionPre-trial Orders
References
Case No. ADJ7158302
Regular
Jun 27, 2013

JUANA ZAVALA PEREZ vs. VIRGINIA SMITH, dba ZIP SORT SUPPORT, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Juana Zavala Perez's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The case involved an appeal against Virginia Smith, dba Zip Sort Support, and Ace American Insurance.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionSubstantive QuestionPre-trial OrderEvidence
References
Case No. ADJ7441026
Regular
Dec 04, 2013

CLAUDIA TORRES vs. ALPAK LABOR, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Claudia Torres's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order that determined substantive rights or liability. The Board further denied Torres's request for removal, adopting the judge's reasoning that Torres failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The decision reinforces that interlocutory procedural orders are not subject to reconsideration or removal. The petition is thus dismissed, and removal denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalDenial of RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNon-FinalSubstantive Question
References
Case No. LAO 0863476
Regular
Jul 31, 2007

MARIA ANA PAREDES (Deceased) CARLOS ALFREDO ALVAREZ vs. ANDROMEDA ENTERTAINMENT INC., dba CLUB GALAXY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinded the judge's denial of a motion to compel, and ordered the applicant to answer deposition questions. The Board found that the applicant's attorney improperly instructed the applicant not to answer questions regarding financial support in El Salvador and employment history, as such questions were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under liberal discovery rules. The Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it reviewed a non-final interlocutory order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMotion to CompelDeposition QuestionsIndustrial InjuryCerebellar HemorrhageWidowerGuardian ad LitemDiscovery Rules
References
Case No. ADJ1170349 (SFO 508341)
Regular
Oct 23, 2008

Amber Ryan vs. DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MONTCLAIR, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPNAY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the applicant, Amber Ryan, which the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed because it was not taken from a "final" order. The WCAB also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted. The Board adopted the Judge's reasoning for denying removal.

Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionSubstantive QuestionPre-trial OrderWCJ Report and Recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ676360 (VNO 0452938)\nADJ4537847 (VNO 0452937)\nADJ1889214 (VNO 0452939)\nADJ263606 (VNO 0452940)
Regular
Nov 25, 2013

Dalal Asadourian vs. The Salvation Army, Specialty Risk Services for The Salvation Army

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order dismisses Dalal Asadourian's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. The Board reasoned that interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions, which do not resolve substantive questions, are not subject to reconsideration. The petition's request for removal was also denied, as applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was dismissed and removal denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory OrderRemovalSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReport and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ8424952
Regular
Sep 10, 2014

ALFONSO CRUZ vs. SIERRA CIRCUITS, INC.; THE HARTFORD

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal regarding deposition questions about medical history and insurance coverage. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition in part, allowing questions about medical insurance and personal doctors, as these are discoverable under CCP § 2017.010. However, the WCAB found questions about past medical treatment paid by others and prior hospitalizations to be overbroad, as they could infringe on the physician-patient privilege regarding unrelated conditions. The Board ordered the applicant to answer specific questions but requires defendants to reframe broader questions concerning medical history to avoid privileged information.

Petition for RemovalFifth AmendmentFirst Amendmentphysician-patient privilegeconfidential communicationindustrial injurymedical historydeposition questionsCode of Civil Procedure section 2017.010Evidence Code sections 990
References
Case No. ADJ8036975
Regular
Jul 19, 2012

ADAM FRY vs. WAVE DIVISION HOLDINGS, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order as required by statute. The order in question was an interlocutory procedural decision, not one determining substantive rights or liabilities. Removal was also denied as the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionPre-trial OrderRemovalSubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ9113213, ADJ9116878, ADJ9116879
Regular
Apr 06, 2015

Patricia Doumar vs. Pathways Home Health and Hospice, Alpha Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Patricia Doumar's petition for reconsideration. This was because the petition sought to review a non-final, interlocutory order. The Board clarified that reconsideration is only permissible for final orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues. The order in question was deemed an intermediate procedural or evidentiary decision, thus not eligible for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderDismissalSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionEvidentiary decisionWCJ
References
Case No. MON 353741
Regular
Jan 13, 2009

CHARLEY W. ELLISON, JR. vs. ALSCO, INC.; ACE AMERICAN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a procedural order denying a change of venue, not a final order resolving substantive rights. The Board clarified that reconsideration is only permissible for final decisions, awards, or orders that determine the ultimate rights and liabilities of the parties involved. As the order in question was interlocutory, it did not qualify for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Denying Change of VenueInterlocutory Procedural OrderFinal OrderLabor Code section 5900Substantive RightsLiabilitiesWCJApplicant
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,210 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