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. unavailable
Regular
Jul 12, 2007

MORA vs. SOUTH BAY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEMPER INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claim by Beach Cities Surgery Center for medical treatment provided to an applicant injured in an admitted industrial incident. The WCJ initially disallowed the lien because the Surgery Center failed to prove its licensure/accreditation at the time of treatment. Although the petition for reconsideration appeared untimely, the Board accepted it as timely based on affidavits indicating hand delivery. Ultimately, reconsideration was denied on the merits, upholding the WCJ's original disallowance of the lien claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial injuryLicensed or accreditedMedical treatmentLien claim disallowedPetition for reconsiderationUntimely filing
References
0
Case No. ADJ2154380 (SAC 0363541)
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

Spencer Davis vs. Clark & Sullivan, Inc., LWP Claims Sacramento, Berkshire Hathaway San Francisco, Berkshire Hathaway Pasadena

The defendant sought to disqualify the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to their unavailability for deposition within the regulatory 120-day timeframe. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition for removal, affirming the lower order. The WCAB found that Administrative Director (AD) Rule 31.5, concerning replacement panels, does not apply to QME unavailability for deposition. Furthermore, the Board found no demonstrable prejudice or irreparable harm, noting the defendant's own rescheduling of the deposition.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME UnavailabilityDeposition SchedulingAdministrative Director RulesAD Rule 35.5(f)AD Rule 31.5(a)(5)AD Rule 33PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
4
Case No. ADJ10393776
Regular
Dec 28, 2020

VILMA PANAMENO vs. NORTHGATE GONZALEZ MARKET, SAFETY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's request for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel after the original QME's appointment expired and they were allegedly unavailable for cross-examination. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found insufficient evidence that the QME was not certified at the time of his reports or that he was truly unavailable. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and the WCAB declined to consider evidence not presented to the trial judge.

RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Panel ReplacementCross-ExaminationMedical UnitThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionAdministrative Director (AD) Rule 31.5Judicial Notice
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 1975

In re the Claim of Pepe

The case involves an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which upheld the Industrial Commissioner's determination to disqualify the claimant from special unemployment assistance benefits. The claimant was deemed unavailable for employment after her cafeteria aid job at a school district ended. Despite being aware her employment would cease, she made limited efforts to find new work, contacting only a few places and restricting her work hours and geographical area. The Board found substantial evidence to support the unavailability for employment.

Unemployment InsuranceBenefit DisqualificationAvailability for WorkJob Search LimitationsAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewIndustrial CommissionerSchool EmploymentLabor Market Conditions
References
0
Case No. ADJ2154380
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

SPENCER DAVIS vs. CLARK & SULLIVAN, INC., LWP CLAIMS SACRAMENTO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY SAN FRANCISCO, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY PASADENA

In this case, the defendant sought to disqualify a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to their alleged unavailability for deposition within 120 days as required by Administrative Director Rule 35.5(f). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for removal. The WCAB found that Rule 31.5, which allows for replacement panels, does not apply to QME unavailability for deposition. Furthermore, the Board determined the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, especially after rescheduling the deposition themselves.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorDeposition UnavailabilityAdministrative Director RuleMandatory RegulationPrejudice and HarmReplacement PanelWCJ OrderUpper Extremities InjuryPsyche Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beverage Marketing Corp. v. Emerald Coast Spring Water Co.

Plaintiff Beverage Marketing, an Ohio corporation, initiated an action in the Southern District of New York seeking a $100,000 finder's fee for an alleged breach of contract against defendants Emerald Coast Spring Water, a Florida corporation, and its former CEO, Gibson. The defendants moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, primarily arguing that crucial non-party witnesses were unavailable in New York but compellable in Florida. The court, presided over by Judge Edelstein, denied the motion, finding that the defendants failed to adequately demonstrate the necessity or unavailability of these witnesses in the chosen forum, and that the balance of convenience did not sufficiently outweigh the plaintiff's choice of forum.

Venue TransferFinder's Fee ContractBreach of ContractDiversity JurisdictionWitness CompellabilityForum SelectionJudicial DiscretionSouthern District of New YorkNorthern District of FloridaContract Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2012

People v. Turnquest

The defendant was arrested on charges including attempted murder and assault against his wife, Emutheul Turnquest. The People moved for a Sirois hearing to introduce Ms. Turnquest's prior out-of-court statements, arguing the defendant's misconduct caused her to recant her initial testimony and become 'unavailable.' Despite Ms. Turnquest's sworn affidavit stating her willingness to testify to a different account, the court found her 'unavailable' to the prosecution due to the defendant's actions. The court concluded that the defendant's repeated visits to Ms. Turnquest's home, numerous telephone calls, and use of third parties to influence her constituted witness tampering in violation of an order of protection. Consequently, the People's motion to introduce Ms. Turnquest's out-of-court declarations was granted.

Sirois HearingWitness UnavailabilityForfeiture by MisconductConfrontation ClauseDomestic ViolenceWitness TamperingRecantation EvidenceOut-of-Court StatementsHearsay ExceptionOrder of Protection Violation
References
23
Case No. ADJ162353
Regular
Nov 02, 2012

GARY NORTH vs. AERO ELECTRIC CONNECTOR, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of an interim order finding an applicant sustained industrial cumulative trauma injury to his neck and internal systems. The defendant argued the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion was not substantial evidence due to an inaccurate history and failure to review all records. The Board found the AME's opinion was based on a thorough evaluation and job duties, affirming the finding of neck injury. The defendant also challenged the reliance on Dr. David's report for internal injuries, citing issues with his appointment and unavailability for deposition; however, the Board found Dr. David's report constituted substantial evidence and that defendant waived objections to his appointment and deposition unavailability by failing to raise them timely.

Cumulative traumaAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial medical evidenceLabor Code section 5701Regular physicianPetition for reconsiderationIndustrial injuryWCJDRE Cervical Category IIWhole Person Impairment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramos v. Howard Industries, Inc.

This is a dissenting opinion in a products liability action concerning a transformer explosion, where the defendant, Howard Industries, Inc., moved for summary judgment. The central issue is the defendant's entitlement to summary judgment when the allegedly defective product was unavailable for inspection or testing. The dissenting judge argues that the defendant's expert evidence, which speculates on alternative causes while admitting the inability to prove a manufacturing defect without the product, is insufficient to meet their burden for summary judgment. The dissent distinguishes this case from Speller v Sears, Roebuck & Co. by highlighting the unique disadvantage faced by the plaintiff due to the product's unavailability in rebutting speculative theories. Therefore, the dissenting judge believes the Appellate Division's decision that the defendant failed to meet its burden should have been upheld, rather than reversed by the majority.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyProduct UnavailabilityCausationManufacturing DefectDissenting OpinionEvidentiary BurdenAppellate ReviewTrial Procedure
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 163 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