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. ADJ229693 (MON 0362437)
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

JUAN PALMA vs. NORMAN'S NURSERY WHOLESALE GROWERS

A lien claimant, former attorney for the applicant, filed a motion to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge, alleging bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) construed this motion as a petition for disqualification. The petition was denied because it was not properly verified under oath as required by WCAB Rule 10844. Furthermore, the petition lacked the necessary supporting affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury required by WCAB Rule 10452.

Petition for disqualificationWCAB Rule 10844Verified pleadingsAffidavitDeclaration under penalty of perjuryWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeBiasMotion to disqualifyLabor Code section 5311WCJ Blais
References
Case No. ADJ7549203
Regular
Feb 22, 2018

RONALD WILSON vs. AEROTEK COMMERCIAL STAFFING; As Administered By ESIS CHATSWORTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's Petition for Removal. The WCAB rescinded the previous order that denied the defendant's motion to set a trial date. The case is now returned to the workers' compensation administrative law judge for further proceedings. This means the previous denial of the trial setting motion is nullified.

Petition for RemovalDecision After RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJrescind ordermotion to set trial datereturn to trial leveladministrative law judgedefendant's motiondenial of motion
References
Case No. ADJ10738767
Regular
Apr 21, 2023

JEANETTE FRANCE vs. LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER

This case involves applicant's attempt to compel the personal appearance of an Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) via subpoena duces tecum. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the applicant's motion as a Petition for Removal of the WCJ's order quashing the subpoena. The WCAB denied removal because the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as required by removal standards. Additionally, the Board noted the petition lacked proper verification, which would have been grounds for dismissal had it not been denied on its merits.

Petition for RemovalMotion to VacateOrder Quashing Subpoena Duces TecumAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Good CauseWCAB Rule 10682Personal AppearanceMedical EvidenceSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
Case No. ADJ982538 (SAC 0225494)
Regular
Jun 09, 2009

GARY SEABROOKS vs. BFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS, RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed applicant Gary Seabrooks' numerous petitions because they were filed without a corresponding final determination. The WCAB removed the case on its own motion to address Seabrooks' pattern of repeatedly filing unmeritorious and harassing documents, which has consumed significant board resources. Consequently, the WCAB has issued a notice of intention to declare Seabrooks a vexatious litigant and impose a prefiling order, restricting his ability to file future documents without prior leave. This action is intended to prevent further abuse of the workers' compensation system and allow for the expeditious resolution of other parties' cases.

Vexatious litigantpropria personapetitions for reconsiderationdismissalremovalnotice of intentionRule 10782Labor Code section 5310unmeritorious petitionsharassment
References
Case No. ADJ7050954
Regular
Mar 09, 2011

Samuel Esparza vs. SOUTH OFFSET PRINTING, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration on its own motion to address a lien claimant's procedural error. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, leading to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss. However, the lien claimant asserted they were available by phone and that a subsequent dismissal order was issued inadvertently by the judge. The Board found that due process required the judge to consider the claimant's objections before dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal order was rescinded, and the case was returned for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationMotionDismissalOrderLabor CodeDue ProcessNotice of IntentionLien Conference
References
Case No. ADJ8191986; ADJ8717495
Regular
Nov 06, 2014

MICHAEL BEN GRAVES vs. MV TRANSPORTATION, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied applicant Michael Ben Graves's emergency motion for a stay of proceedings. The WCAB found that no proceedings were currently pending before it, making the motion moot regarding appeals board actions. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate a connection between his pending Court of Appeal writ of review and the undecided vexatious litigant issue at the trial level, nor did he show irreparable harm. Consequently, the motion to stay trial-level proceedings was also denied.

Vexatious litigantEmergency motion for stayWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for writ of reviewCourt of AppealPresiding workers' compensation administrative law judgeWCAB Rule 10782Pro se applicantSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
Case No. ADJ4385917 (AHM 0070664)
Regular
May 10, 2010

CYNTHIA BECKER vs. ST. JUDE MEDICAL CENTER, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the order denying their motion to quash subpoenas was not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's petition for removal, stating there was no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable injury. The defendant had argued the WCJ erred in denying their motion to quash subpoenas for dental records and other facilities. The Board concluded that any objections could be raised later if costs were incurred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalMotion to QuashSubpoenas Duces TecumInterlocutory Procedural OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ461341 (LAO 0867639) ADJ4069601 (LAO 0867640)
Regular
Jan 18, 2010

MARTHA GUERRERO vs. HYATT CORPORATION, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original Findings and Award due to the defendant's contention that the disability rating was incorrectly calculated. The defendant argued the wrong occupational group was used and the AMA Guides were not properly applied. While the WCJ recommended denying reconsideration, the Board found that the defendant may have filed a motion to strike the rating that was not located in the file. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for the WCJ to determine if a proper motion to strike was filed.

WCABReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityDisability Evaluation UnitAMA GuidesOccupational GroupAgreed Medical ExaminersMotion to StrikeDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
Case No. ADJ8718900
Regular
Jun 27, 2019

JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ RAYA vs. JOANNE RUIZ, dba J'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the judge's order that denied a motion to quash a deposition of defense counsel. The Board found that depositions of opposing counsel are disfavored and require a high standard of cause, which was not met. Furthermore, the judge denied the motion without a hearing or proper justification, violating due process. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for well-supported discovery requests given the age of the claim.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashDeposition of Defense CounselOpposing Counsel DepositionDisfavored DiscoveryIntoxication DefenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(4)Burden of ProofPanel QMEStipulation
References
Case No. ADJ9972033
Regular
Aug 18, 2015

BRIAN DEL ROSARIO vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., LIBERY INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's mootness order, and remanded the case for a decision on the merits of the employer's motion to quash. The employer argued that a subpoena duces tecum for ten years of employment records was overly broad and burdensome, and reconsideration later would not be adequate. The Board found the employer demonstrated substantial prejudice and irreparable harm due to the breadth of the request and a drafting error in the original motion. A dissenting opinion argued removal was inappropriate as the employer's error, not the WCJ's, created the issue, and the employer had an adequate remedy by refiling.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashMootnessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJAdministrative Law JudgeDiscovery Dispute
References
Showing 1-10 of 448 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