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. ADJ356153 (LAO 0887403)
Regular
May 21, 2009

SANTIAGO IBARRA vs. ABM INDUSTRIES, INC., Administered By ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed defendant ABM Industries' Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order compelling a new QME panel was interlocutory, not a final determination of substantive rights. The WCAB also denied defendant's request for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to justify the extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's prior order had denied defendant's request to compel a medical evaluation and ordered a new QME panel due to concerns about defendant's advocacy letter to the original QME. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning, deeming the interlocutory procedural order not subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardABM IndustriesInc.ESISSantiago IbarraPetition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME paneladvocacy letter
References
Case No. ADJ3741925 (VNO 0106922) ADJ3558542 (VNO 0106921)
Regular
Jul 06, 2012

MICHELE KOTLARCHICK vs. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied General Motors' Petition for Reconsideration regarding a $500 contempt citation. The Board found the defendant's counsel persistently argued a point after the judge ruled against him and warned of contempt. This continued defiance constituted deliberate disobedience and flouting of the court's authority. Additionally, the Board denied the Petition for Removal concerning a discovery order, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMichele KotlarchickGeneral Motors CorporationPetition for ReconsiderationContempt citationVigorous advocacyDefiance of rulingDirect contemptLabor Code § 5309(c)Petition for Removal
References
Case No. ADJ886832 (VNO 0463817) ADJ7239162 ADJ7559804
Regular
Apr 17, 1977

MARGOT LOWE vs. SAV-ON DRUGS and SEDGWICK CMS, CVS and GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Appeals Board dismissed Sav-On Drugs' Petition for Reconsideration because it was not taken from a "final" order, but rather an interlocutory procedural decision. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. This denial does not preclude Sav-On from raising its objections in a future petition for reconsideration of a final decision. The Board specifically noted that the disputed advocacy letter to the Agreed Medical Evaluator did not appear to affect the AME's findings.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenying RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderAgreed Medical EvaluatorAdvocacy LetterLabor Code Section 4062.3Substantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ10887066 ADJ10887074
Regular
Nov 14, 2018

RAUL JUAREZ vs. EB DESIGN, INC., THE HARTFORD INSURANCE

This case concerns defendant's ex parte communication with a QME, specifically sending surveillance video and an advocacy letter without proper notice. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the trial judge's order striking the QME report, and remanded the case. The Board clarified that WCAB Rule 10507 extends the timeframe for applicant to object to non-medical records, but not the defendant's initial service deadline under Labor Code section 4062.3(b).

RemovalJoint Findings of FactOrder and Opinion on DecisionQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelorthopedic surgerystrickeninadmissibleLabor Code section 4062.3ex parte communication
References
Case No. ADJ7745775
Regular
Jun 16, 2015

ENRIQUE CASTANEDA vs. MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the February 4, 2014 Findings of Fact and awarded further medical treatment for applicant Enrique Castaneda against Monterey Mushrooms, Inc. The WCAB also imposed sanctions of $500.00 against defense counsel Peter R. Nelson and his firm, jointly and severally, for intemperate language used during advocacy. Defense counsel's objection and apology were considered, leading to a reduced sanction amount. The sanctions were justified by the board's need to address the counsel's inappropriate language, which diverted resources.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionsIntemperate languageHeat of advocacyDefense counselPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactFurther medical treatmentAward
References
Case No. ADJ2623740
Regular
Dec 13, 2010

MARTHA HERNANDEZ vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

The Appeals Board rescinded its Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against CMS Network, Inc. and its representatives, Dominic D. Arguello and Randal Hollien. Initially, sanctions were considered due to repeated misstatements of law concerning a lien claimant's burden of proof in petitions for reconsideration. Although zealous advocacy is not an excuse for legal misstatements, the Board found no intent to mislead and acknowledged the respondents' understanding of correct legal precedent. The matter is returned to the trial level, with the Board emphasizing that lien claimants bear the burden of proving the reasonableness of their fees, citing precedent like *Kunz* and *Tapia*.

WCABRemovalSanctionsLien claimant burden of proofPetition for reconsiderationHearing representativesZealous advocacyMisstatements of lawEn banc decisionsBinding precedent
References
Case No. ADJ11262392
Regular
Mar 08, 2019

JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ vs. REAL TIME STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, EXCEL INSURANCE AMERICA, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order. However, the WCAB granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's findings, and returned the case to the trial level. This action was taken because the record was incomplete, lacking crucial medical records and evidence of service, preventing meaningful review and a proper decision. The WCAB emphasized the need for a developed record and encouraged the parties to resolve the dispute regarding the advocacy letter informally.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQME advocacy letterSanctionsFindings and Notice of IntentInterlocutory orderFinal orderAdmitted evidence
References
Case No. ADJ12557876
Regular
Nov 04, 2020

VERONICA MADRIGAL vs. MONTEREY COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.

Here is a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The defendant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order denying their petition for a new QME panel and finding their objections to the existing panel harmless error. The Appeals Board denied the petition, agreeing that the applicant's counsel's communication with the QME, while a technical violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(b), did not result in prejudice warranting a new panel. The Board also found the defendant waived their right to object to the QME's report by relying on it to terminate temporary disability benefits. Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide evidence that the original QME panel was improperly issued, thus failing to prove entitlement to a new orthopedic panel.

QME panelLabor Code section 4062.3ex parte communicationadvocacy letterharmless errorstipulated findings and orderremovalreconsiderationmedical evaluatoragreed medical evaluator
References
Case No. ADJ11565056, ADJ11556788
Regular
Oct 23, 2025

ADDA LARA vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

Applicant petitioned for removal of a WCJ order, seeking a replacement QME, alleging defendant improperly served communication regarding the QME evaluation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy and the applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board concluded that defendant's communication was properly served and not ex parte, and applicant's objection was untimely and waived. Furthermore, applicant's delay in acting on the objection until after receiving the QME report was deemed inconsistent with terminating the evaluation, leading to the denial of the petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code Section 4062.3Advocacy LetterService RequirementsTimeliness of ObjectionSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration
References
Case No. OAK 322095 OAK 322093
Regular
Mar 01, 2009

JEANETTE RELEVANTE vs. ALTA BATES SUMMIT MEDICAL CENTER, ST. PAUL TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal and amended a prior order. The Board found insufficient evidence to determine if the applicant sustained a compensable neck injury on February 28, 2005, due to a prior injury in 1999. The case is remanded for further record development by providing prior medical records to evaluating physicians.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompensable ConsequenceMedical AdvocacyLabor Code 4061Labor Code 4062Treating PhysicianQualified Medical EvaluatorSupplemental Report
References
Showing 1-10 of 24 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