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. ADJ7947039
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

ROSAURA DE LA CUEVA vs. GOLDILOCKS CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal to rescind an order taking the case off calendar. The WCJ had taken the case off calendar after lien claimants requested discovery of the personnel file, which the defendant opposed. The Appeals Board found insufficient record regarding the lien claimants' due diligence in discovery or the good cause for taking the case off calendar. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including a lien conference and potential trial, with guidance on serving discovery if specific defenses are raised.

Petition for RemovalOff CalendarLien ConferencePersonnel FileDiscoveryAOE/COECompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code Section 3208.3(h)Due Diligence
References
0
Case No. ADJ8051978
Regular
Jan 26, 2016

LUISA LOPEZ vs. SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding an order taking the matter off calendar. The defendant argued that the applicant lacked medical evidence of new and further disability to support re-examinations with medical evaluators. The Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm absent removal. Therefore, the petition was denied, and the WCJ's decision to take the case off calendar was upheld.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderNew and Further DisabilityRe-examinationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Stipulations with Request for AwardWCJWCABIrreparable Harm
References
2
Case No. ADJ4665750
Regular
Oct 07, 2011

MARTIN ROJAS vs. ANHEUSER BUSCH, CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

Here's a summary for a lawyer in four sentences: The applicant sought reconsideration of an order taking the matter off calendar, claiming unspecified alterations were made to a signed Compromise and Release Agreement. The Board dismissed the petition, as reconsideration can only be sought for a final order, decision, or award. An order taking a matter off calendar is not a final order as it does not determine substantive rights or liabilities. The applicant may still raise issues regarding the unapproved Compromise and Release Agreement at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and Release AgreementOrder taking off calendarFinal orderSubstantive rights and liabilitiesWCJ approvalTrial levelIn pro perChartis Claims Inc.
References
3
Case No. ADJ9136374
Regular
Aug 18, 2015

RAUL GUZMAN vs. SHARPE INTERIOR SYSTEMS, AMTRUST SAN FRANCISCO

The applicant sought removal of an order taking his case off calendar at a mandatory settlement conference. The judge removed the case because the defendant disputed coverage, leaving the applicant without benefits. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding significant prejudice due to the applicant's exhausted disability benefits and lack of current support. The order taking the case off calendar was rescinded, and the matter was returned for an expedited settlement conference. Sanctions against the defendant were deferred to the trial level.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarMandatory Settlement ConferenceDenial of CoverageLabor Code Section 5813SanctionsBad FaithUnreasonable DelaySignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
4
Case No. ADJ833288 (LBO 0385383)
Regular
Jan 29, 2016

MARTIN VALDEZ vs. NATURE'S TREE SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of an order taking the case off calendar, arguing their attorney was not properly served with prior dismissal notices. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because an order taking a case off calendar is interlocutory and not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board denied the request for removal, stating the applicant had not shown substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant must address the prior dismissal order at the trial level before seeking appellate review.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderDismissal OrderSubstitution of AttorneysLack of ProsecutionService of ProcessInterlocutory OrderFinal Order
References
9
Case No. ADJ9812433
Regular
Mar 10, 2016

HECTOR ORTIZ vs. WALGREENS FAMILY OF COMPANIES, dba TAKE CARE, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Walgreens' petition for removal, which challenged an order to take the case off calendar for a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) evaluation. The Board found that proceeding with the QME evaluation, which had been delayed due to clerical errors and physician availability, would not cause Walgreens irreparable harm. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy and that developing the record through a QME is essential for the orderly resolution of the applicant's alleged industrial injuries.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorOff CalendarSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMedical UnitPanel RequestStrikeReplacement PanelDevelopment of the Record
References
2
Case No. ADJ9549383
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

JUANA ZELEDON DE TREMINIO vs. ESPOSTOS FINE FOODS INC. dba BOX LUNCH CO.

The defendant sought removal of the WCJ's orders to reopen discovery and take the case off calendar, arguing the applicant lacked due diligence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's minute orders, and returned the case for trial without further discovery. The Board found the WCJ erred by taking the case off calendar and reopening discovery before trial, as there was no established record of deficient medical reports to justify such actions. The question of due diligence and substantial evidence should be determined based on admitted evidence at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMinute OrdersReopening DiscoveryOff CalendarDue DiligencePrejudicialIrreparably HarmfulMedical Provider Network (MPN)Continuity of Care
References
2
Case No. SJO 0256905
Regular
Jul 17, 2008

FERDINAND LIZARDO vs. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, AVIZENT/FRANK GATES SERVICES

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, holding that an order taking a case off calendar is an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order subject to reconsideration. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding that the WCJ did not abuse discretion by taking the case off calendar to consolidate it with another claim for judicial economy, as the defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice. The defendant's arguments regarding due process and potential future medical-legal costs were found insufficient grounds for removal.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaloff calendardue processirreparable harmsignificant prejudiceinterlocutory orderfinal ordersubstantive right or liability
References
7
Case No. ADJ10459640
Regular
Dec 01, 2019

Antonio Venegas vs. Baron HR Staffing, Kruse and Sons, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding an order that had taken the case off calendar. The applicant argued the removal order deprived him of due process, as joining additional parties was not necessary for trial. The Board found that while joining parties might be necessary, taking the case off calendar hindered the system's purpose of prompt benefit payment. The matter is returned to the trial level for placement back on calendar, with a status conference suggested if delays are needed for joinder.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalJoint and Several LiabilityGeneral and Special EmploymentDue ProcessExpedited HearingPriority ConferenceLabor Code Section 3602(d)Insurance Code Section 11663Off Calendar
References
8
Case No. ADJ820875 (MON 0251000) ADJ4467494 (MON 0156338) ADJ1266959 (LAO 0791769) ADJ1310086 (MON 0252336) ADJ2298144 (MON 0252337) ADJ4041333 (MON 0252338)
Regular
Mar 04, 2020

FEREZ, Gabriel vs. DILLINGHAM/ SADELMI; AIG INSURANCE; VALVERDE CONSTRUCTION; CIGA; MARMELLOTTO; VALLEY CEST; ACE INSURANCE, administered by ESIS

This case involves a lien claimant, Elena Konstat Ph.D., whose request to proceed with a lien on multiple workers' compensation claims was taken off calendar by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal because the ALJ's order erroneously stated the lien claimant lacked standing without a proper adjudication. While affirming the order to take the matter off calendar, the WCAB amended the order to remove the problematic language regarding standing, clarifying that the lien claimant's claim has not been decided on its merits. The matter was removed from the calendar to allow proper service and procedural steps for another lien claimant, Precision Pharmacy, before any further lien conferences or trials.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalLien ClaimantWCJOff CalendarStandingLabor Code §4903.8(d)Joint Compromise and ReleaseSettlement AgreementDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 739 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