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. ADJ6754074
Regular
Dec 14, 2010

BARBARA JACOME vs. DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES, OLD REPUBLIC, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal challenging a WCJ's order granting the defendant's request for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The applicant argued the defendant's objection to the QME's report timeliness was conditional and not properly served, thereby waiving their right to a replacement. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the defendant's objection, made after receiving the report, was insufficient and void. Therefore, the defendant was not entitled to a replacement panel, and the QME's report was deemed admissible.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorReplacement PanelTimeliness ObjectionConditional ObjectionLabor Code SectionsCalifornia Code of RegulationsMedical DirectorAdministrative DirectorComprehensive Medical-Legal Evaluation
References
0
Case No. ADJ2670962 (VNO 0452832)
Regular
Feb 16, 2018

Willie Atkins vs. Anheuser-Busch; permissibly self-insured, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ's order taking the matter off calendar. The applicant alleged discrimination and sought to proceed with his Labor Code section 132(a) petition, which had been deemed untimely. The Board found that substantial prejudice would result from denying removal, as a hearing was necessary to determine the timeliness of the 132(a) claim and admit evidence. The applicant's separate petition to disqualify the WCJ was dismissed due to procedural deficiencies and lack of factual support for bias.

Petition for RemovalLabor Code Section 132(a)WCJVexatious LitigantDisqualificationOff CalendarSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationIn Propria Persona
References
6
Case No. ADJ9241658, ADJ9546688
Regular
Dec 13, 2016

LORI VEIGA BLUM vs. CALIFORNIA SKIN INSTITUTE, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The applicant sought a hearing regarding the timeliness of the defendant's utilization review (UR) determination. The WCJ improperly took the matter off calendar without a hearing, denying the applicant's due process rights. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the WCJ's order was not a final decision and that the applicant was entitled to a hearing on the UR timeliness issue. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Utilisation ReviewDeclaration of ReadinessOrder Taking Off CalendarPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
13
Case No. ADJ9834159 (MF) ADJ9834161
Regular
Jul 30, 2018

ESAU HERNANDEZ vs. D.L. BONE AND SONS PAINTING, ICW GROUP/EXPLORER INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's attempt to obtain a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel after the applicant initially objected to the timeliness of the original QME's report. The Appeals Board treated the defendant's petition as one for removal and denied it. The Board found that the defendant, having failed to timely object to the QME's report itself, could not rely on the applicant's subsequent objection to request a new panel. The Board concluded that the defendant's failure to act promptly meant they were not entitled to a replacement QME panel, and no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm warranting removal was demonstrated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelAdministrative Director RuleTimeliness objectionReplacement QME panelLabor CodeFindings of Fact
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor

The appellate court addressed appeals by the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) concerning judgments that annulled the DOL's determination that prevailing wages must be paid by Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. and Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. for refuse collection, specifically questioning if this applied to private buildings. The court first clarified that the actions were purely for declaratory judgment, not CPLR article 78 proceedings to annul determinations. Interpreting Labor Law § 231 (1), the court found that its plain language and legislative intent did not limit its application to public buildings. Consequently, the court concluded that employers are indeed obligated to pay prevailing wages to employees collecting garbage or refuse from both public and private buildings under municipal contracts. The judgments of the lower court were modified, and declarations were amended to reflect this obligation.

Prevailing WageLabor LawStatutory InterpretationPublic WorksBuilding Service WorkGarbage CollectionRefuse RemovalMunicipal ContractsDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. SAC 308622 SAC 308623 SAC 309351 SAC 323463 SAC 355784
Regular
May 09, 2007

DELETTE ZIEGELMANN-JACKSON vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The applicant sought removal to challenge the WCJ's deferral of a ruling on a petition to enforce a subpoena for personal items, arguing it unfairly required a second deposition. The Appeals Board dismissed removal in several cases where no issues were pending, but granted removal in case number SAC 355784. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order deferring the subpoena ruling, allowing for potential further depositions if warranted, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalPetition to EnforceSubpoena Duces TecumDeferred RulingIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 132aDiscriminationPrivacyDeposition
References
0
Case No. ADJ1943415 (LBO 0381428)
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

ADALBERTO JUAREZ vs. P.S. STIX INCORPORATED, NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for removal regarding an order to disclose a global settlement with a co-defendant. The Appeals Board found the procedural record deficient, preventing timely review of the removal petition. Ultimately, the Board granted removal on its own motion to address the "procedural morass." The Board rescinded the WCJ's order reinstating a prior minute order and dismissed the lien claimant's petition as moot, allowing for an in-camera review of the settlement agreement.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantGlobal SettlementConfidentiality clauseNon-Disclosure clauseCompromise and ReleaseMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJOrder Setting Aside
References
4
Case No. ADJ7680087
Regular
Jul 03, 2012

ROSALIND LOVE vs. PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Rosalind Love's Petition for Removal. The Board found that the applicant's assertion of untimeliness regarding a Pre-Trial Conference Statement lacked sufficient proof of service in the record. However, the Board denied removal not on the merits of the timeliness issue, but because the timely filing of a removal petition is not jurisdictional.

Petition for RemovalReport of WCJPre-Trial Conference StatementPersonal ServiceProof of ServiceTimely FilingJurisdictionalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPittsburg Unified School DistrictWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ80340084
Regular
Apr 23, 2013

KEITH CRABTREE vs. CITY OF TURLOCK, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision addresses a defendant's petition for removal. The Board denied removal regarding the WCJ's continuance of trial to April 29, 2013. However, the Board granted removal and rescinded the WCJ's order compelling the defendant to produce claims adjustor Rebecca Huiras and the claims file without a subpoena. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

RemovalWCJContinuance of trialClaims adjustorWitness productionClaims fileSubpoenaRescindedReturned to trial levelDecision after removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ7093760
Regular
Apr 26, 2019

AMINTA CANALES vs. RAMONA'S FOOD GROUP, CALIFORNIA CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant, Ramona's Food Group, sought removal from an order requiring Dr. Katrina Spears Babcock to appear at trial. The defendant argued it would suffer irreparable harm and that the sole issue was the timeliness of the utilization review. However, the WCJ deferred the issue of Dr. Babcock's subpoena until jurisdiction was established, rendering the removal petition moot. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalUtilization ReviewSubpoenaWCJAppeals BoardIrreparable HarmMootJurisdictionOrder to AppearDefendant
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 5,296 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