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. MON 310553
Regular
Sep 05, 2007

, LAZARO MARTINEZ vs. , WEDGESTONE CORP.;, CRUM & FORSTER

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order closing discovery. The applicant argued that discovery should not have been closed as their serious and willful misconduct claim was not addressed at the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) and the case was subsequently taken off calendar. The Board agreed that the closure of discovery was improper, particularly since the case was taken off calendar, and the relevant statute does not mandate closure in such circumstances.

Petition for removalSerious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Mandatory settlement conferenceDiscovery closedTaken off calendarIndustrial injuryIncreased benefitsWCJ orderRescind order
References
0
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. 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. 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
Case No. ADJ15474722; ADJ15474723
Regular
Apr 25, 2023

TERESA MENDEZ vs. VILLAGE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Teresa Mendez's Petition for Removal as moot. The petition sought review of an order setting a trial date, but this order was subsequently superseded by a stipulation for a new QME panel. Because the parties resolved the issues raised in the petition, the Board found no active controversy to decide. The matter was taken off calendar and can be returned to the calendar once discovery is complete.

Petition for RemovalMootSuperseded OrderAOE/COEQME panelDiscoveryOff CalendarDeclaration of ReadinessMandatory Settlement ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ6906376
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

MICHELLE WALKER vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES; Permissibly Self-Insured, c/o BROADSPIRE SERVICES

This case involves a workers' compensation trial that was taken off calendar by the WCJ due to the applicant's and defendant's attorneys arriving late and failing to have exhibits prepared, and subsequently not returning to the courtroom as ordered. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding that taking the case off calendar was prejudicial to the applicant and a waste of court resources. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order and returned the case for a new trial, while noting that the attorneys' conduct and the defendant's misrepresentation of facts were unacceptable and could lead to sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderWCJHearing RepresentativeExhibitsSanctionsContempt ProceedingsMisrepresentationRescinded Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ14421256; ADJ13440052
Regular
Jul 29, 2025

SAMUEL WILLIAMS vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER

Applicant Samuel Williams filed petitions for removal and reconsideration regarding a case taken off calendar due to his disruptive behavior during a virtual hearing. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, stating that the Minute Order was an intermediate procedural order and not a final decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and rejected the request for disqualification due to insufficient factual basis and improper filing. The WCJ's decision to take the case off calendar was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDisqualificationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSMinute Orderinterlocutory ordersubstantial prejudice
References
12
Case No. ADJ8845585
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

WESLEY RENTFROW vs. COUNTY OF MERCED, PEGASUS RISK MANAGEMENT

Defendant, County of Merced, filed a petition for removal from an order taking the matter off calendar, contending further discovery was unnecessary. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered the petition, the applicant's answer, and the WCJ's report, ultimately denying removal. The WCAB stated that removal is an extraordinary remedy and found no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the Board noted the issue appeared moot as the defendant had not taken steps to place the matter back on calendar in the three years since filing the petition.

Petition for RemovalOff Calendar OrderWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationMoot IssueDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedCOBRA PremiumsAdjudication Number
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almanzar v. Rye Ridge Realty Co.

Plaintiffs initiated a negligence action in 1982 against Rye Ridge Realty, Veemac Elevator, and Accessories By Pearl after an elevator fall in 1981, leading to multiple injuries. The case was marked off the calendar in 1993 due to a plaintiff's unavailability and subsequently dismissed in 1994 under CPLR 3404 for failure to restore within one year. Plaintiffs' motion to restore the action in 1997, citing excuses like a pending workers' compensation claim and medical treatment, was granted by the motion court. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the four criteria for restoration: a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for delay, lack of intent to abandon, and no prejudice to the non-moving party. Consequently, the action was dismissed, and a subsequent appeal for renewal and reargument was dismissed as academic.

NegligencePersonal InjuryElevator AccidentMotion to RestoreAction DismissalCPLR 3404Failure to ProsecutePresumption of AbandonmentPrejudiceAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2004

Zenteno v. Geils

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial calendar and for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for delay, citing extensive medical evaluations and difficulties obtaining authorization from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The court also determined that the defendants were not prejudiced by the restoration. Furthermore, an alleged agreement to proceed to arbitration was deemed unenforceable due to non-compliance with CPLR 2104 "open court" requirements. Finally, the Supreme Court's decision to grant leave for a supplemental bill of particulars was upheld, as it pertained to continuing consequences of existing injuries rather than new ones, aligning with CPLR 3043 [b].

Personal InjuryTrial Calendar RestorationSupplemental Bill of ParticularsArbitration Agreement EnforcementCPLR 2104CPLR 3043Medical ExaminationsWorkers' Compensation IssuesAppellate ReviewProcedural Motion
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 942 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