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. ADJ7184070
Regular
Aug 17, 2016

ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ vs. PACIFIC EXTERIORS, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's Petition for Removal and Disqualification of the WCJ. The lien claimant sought to challenge an order rescinding an earlier lien allowance and a notice of intent to sanction them for allegedly obtaining a settlement without proper authority. The Board found that the lien claimant had adequate recourse through a petition for reconsideration regarding sanctions and that the disqualification allegations were not supported by the record. The WCJ acted appropriately by rescinding the order when concerns were raised, and no bias was demonstrated.

Petition for RemovalWCJLien ClaimantSanctionsDisqualificationCompromise and ReleaseLabor CodeAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Re: LienPetition for Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. ADJ8008848; ADJ8012651
Regular
Feb 23, 2015

MARCELA QUIRINO vs. MARMALADE CAFÉ, Permissibly Self-Insured, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION Administered by AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Lien Claimants challenging a Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) notices of intent to sanction Dr. Rubanenko and dismiss lien claims. The Lien Claimants argued the WCJ lacked jurisdiction due to pending prior removal petitions, but the Appeals Board found the WCJ retained jurisdiction. Because the WCJ proceeded and issued orders addressing these issues, the current Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot, with further appeals or reconsideration being the proper avenue for challenging any final orders. The Board also denied the request to remove the WCJ as the showing of prejudice or bias was insufficient.

Removal PetitionLien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LiensNotice of Intention to Award CostsSanctionsWCJ JurisdictionPetition for RemovalMPNMedical Provider NetworkPrejudice
References
1
Case No. ADJ7680003
Regular
Aug 20, 2018

VALERIE CROOK vs. SANTA YNEZ VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN PRESCHOOL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal challenging discovery closure orders issued by a workers' compensation judge (WCJ). The defendant argued that closing discovery prematurely would cause significant prejudice. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the removal, finding the WCJ erred in believing a peremptory challenge to their role prevented them from issuing discovery orders. The WCAB amended the original orders to allow the originally permitted discovery while otherwise affirming the WCJ's decisions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPre-Trial Conference StatementDiscoveryVocational EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorSupplemental ReportPre-emptory ChallengeMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJ Authority
References
4
Case No. ADJ13227834
Regular
Oct 10, 2025

Efren Sifuentes Nava vs. San Carlos Roofing Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund

Defendant SCIF filed a petition for removal challenging an order to serve medical records issued on December 2, 2024, by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ recommended dismissal because the defendant's objection to the order included a self-destruct clause, rendering the original order moot upon objection. The Appeals Board agreed that there was no active order to challenge and further noted the permissibility of a WCJ rescinding an offending order to promote judicial economy. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was dismissed as moot.

Petition for RemovalWCJ OrderSelf-Destruct ClauseMootRescissionJudicial EconomyAppeals BoardCost PetitionerMedical RecordsAdjudication Number
References
1
Case No. ADJ11745461
Regular
Dec 11, 2019

ANTONIO VIRRUETA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a dispute over the appropriate medical specialty for evaluating an applicant's claimed bilateral knee injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision, holding that the defendant's petition challenging the WCJ's determination on QME panel specialty was subject to the removal standard, not reconsideration. The majority found that while the employment relationship finding was final, the challenge to the panel specialty was an interlocutory issue. They concluded that removal was not warranted as the defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)QME Panel SpecialtyMedical DirectorOrthopedic SurgeonChiropractor
References
9
Case No. ADJ1462684 (SBR 0332199) ADJ4330124 (SBR 0332208) ADJ2350306 (SBR 0333426) ADJ6736405
Regular
Dec 13, 2011

ISABELA AGARONYAN vs. REGENTS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

This case involves defendant's challenge to the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) appointment of a new physician, Dr. Watkin, after prior medical reports from Dr. Kuschner were deemed not substantial evidence. The WCAB dismissed the petition for reconsideration, finding it challenged an interim procedural order, not a final decision. The petition for removal was denied because the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the appointment of Dr. Watkin. The Board affirmed the WCJ's discretion to appoint a new physician to develop a substantial medical record, especially given concerns about the adequacy of Dr. Kuschner's previous reports.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeSpecial PhysicianRegular PhysicianPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerSubstantial Medical EvidenceJoint LetterBias
References
11
Case No. ADJ16089938
Regular
Jan 25, 2023

ALEJANDRO PRADO vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, HELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal challenging a WCJ's decision validating the defendant's request for a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The applicant argued the panel request was invalid because it was based on Labor Code section 4061 before permanent and stationary status was reached. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding the WCJ's decision addressed a threshold issue, making it a final order. However, because the petitioner only challenged an interlocutory finding within that order, the Appeals Board applied the stricter removal standard. Removal was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy.

ALEJANDRO PRADOCOSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATIONHELMSMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICESADJ16089938PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONTHRESHOLD ISSUEFINAL DECISIONINTERLOCUTORY ISSUEREMOVAL STANDARDSIGNIFICANT PREJUDICE
References
4
Case No. ADJ8171717
Regular
Oct 09, 2014

ANOUSH MASSIHI vs. OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Anoush Massihi's workers' compensation claim against Occidental College and Seabright Insurance Company for continuous trauma injuries. The Defendants petitioned for reconsideration, challenging the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) reliance on Dr. Sobel's medical opinions, findings on wages and concurrent employment, apportionment, and the employer's Medical Provider Network status. The WCJ's report recommended denying reconsideration, finding that the WCJ properly exercised discretion in weighing medical evidence and that issues of wages and concurrent employment were waived. The WCJ also found sufficient basis for apportionment and that the MPN issue was irrelevant to the decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOccidental CollegeSeabright Insurance CompanyPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportAnoush MassihiContinuous Trauma InjuryDr. Philip SobelQualified Medical ExaminerPQME
References
0
Case No. ADJ2887862
Regular
Nov 22, 2010

MARIA MEZQUITE vs. AMPCO SYSTEM PARKING, ESIS CHATWORTH

This case involves lien claimants challenging a WCJ's decision denying their claims for medical treatment. The WCJ found most bills inadmissible, citing an agreed medical examiner's opinion that the treatment was unnecessary, and noted that some lien claimants did not even file liens. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration but ultimately affirmed the WCJ's original decision. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning and found no error in the exclusion of the medical bills.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardreconsiderationlien claimantsFindings and Orderadministrative law judgeburden of proofinadmissible billsAgreed Medical ExaminerMPN regulationsusual and customary fees
References
1
Case No. ADJ3269128 (SAC 0315100)
Regular
Jan 29, 2010

STEFANIE KING vs. SIERRA FAMILY SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's (WCJ) order for further medical record development. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition, finding the challenged order was not a "final order" subject to reconsideration. The Board also rescinded the WCJ's subsequent order appointing a physician, as the WCJ lacked authority to issue it while a petition for reconsideration was pending. Removal was granted on the Board's own motion to address the impropriety of the WCJ's order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalDecision After RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinding and OrderCumulative PeriodIndustrial InjuryMononucleosisEpstein-Barr Syndrome
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 8,316 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