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. ADJ13120564
Regular
Sep 15, 2022

Hector Barragan vs. Stanford Healthcare, Safety National Casualty, Tristar Insurance Group

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved an applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior order that deemed an EAMS document discoverable. The Board admitted the document into evidence as Exhibit XX but reversed the prior ruling on discoverability. The Board found the document not relevant to the applicant's alleged foot and ankle injuries, nor was there a waiver of privacy. Consequently, the defendant is prohibited from producing the document without WCAB authorization.

EAMSdiscoverablerelevantprivacy waiverQualified Medical EvaluatorPetition for Removalin camera reviewinadmissibilitycumulative injurydeposition transcript
References
Case No. ADJ8396609
Regular
Sep 20, 2013

KELLY SNOW vs. HEALTH NET, INC., SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding prior orders that compelled the release of her psychotherapist's records and quashed subpoenas. The applicant argued these records were privileged psychotherapist-patient communications, and the therapist was not a physician or psychologist, thus their records were not discoverable for QME review. The Board found that while the psychotherapist-patient privilege exists, it is subject to waiver when mental condition is placed in issue by the patient, but this waiver is limited to relevant records. The case was returned to the trial level to determine if Ms. Bradley's records are relevant to the disclosed psychiatric injury or unrelated.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Quash Subpoena Duces TecumPsychotherapist-patient privilegeQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code section 3209.3Administrative Director Rule 35Evidence Code section 1010Holder of the privilegeEvidence Code section 1013Evidence Code section 1014
References
Case No. ADJ7474686
Regular
Apr 28, 2011

RONALD DENTON vs. DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding a prior order that allowed the applicant's deposition before receiving defendant's witness statements. Applicant claimed prejudice from this sequence, while defendant asserted attorney-client privilege over the statements. The Board adopted the WCJ's recommendation, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and record development. The Board also noted the initial lack of documentation for the disputed order and potential sanctions if no statements exist.

Petition for RemovalRescind OrderWitness StatementsAttorney Work Product PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWaiverDevelop Record
References
Case No. ADJ4227582
Regular
Nov 18, 2011

BOBBY CLEMENTS vs. GEORGE REED, INC., TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves an applicant seeking removal of a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) after an order compelling disclosure of specific records. The applicant claimed bias, Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and privacy rights for corporate records. The Appeals Board denied the petition, clarifying that removal requires more than disagreement with a ruling and that the Fifth Amendment privilege is waived when a party initiates litigation and the requested information is relevant to their claim. The Board found no evidence of bias and ruled that the applicant could not use the privilege to obstruct relevant discovery essential for the defendant's defense.

Petition for RemovalWCJ biasFifth Amendmentself-incriminationevidentiary privilegespatient-litigant exceptionwaiverdiscoveryadministrative law judgeworkers' compensation
References
Case No. Misc. No. 254
Significant
Sep 21, 2011

vs. Daniel Escamilla

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice for a hearing to consider the suspension or removal of Daniel Escamilla's privilege to appear as a representative, citing a history of repeated sanctions for frivolous petitions, bad-faith tactics, and misrepresentations of fact in multiple cases.

Labor Code section 4907Suspension of privilegeRemoval of privilegeRepresentative privilegeBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsUnnecessary delayWillful non-complianceMisrepresentation of factSanctions
References
Case No. ADJ9426494
Regular
Jun 10, 2015

BARBARA SWENSON vs. COMPASS HEALTH, MURPHY AND BEANE, INC.

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the applicant sought interview transcripts and statements of defense witnesses. The judge initially ordered the defendant to produce all such materials. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the order was overbroad and violated due process by failing to account for work product and attorney-client privilege. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, amending the original order. The amended order requires the defendant to provide requested materials, excluding those protected by privilege, for which a privilege log must be filed.

Petition for RemovalInterview TranscriptsWitness StatementsWork ProductAttorney-Client PrivilegePrivilege LogDue ProcessOverbroad OrderAppeals BoardWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ7247116 ADJ7241415 ADJ7407598 ADJ9052220 ADJ9432209
Regular
Feb 12, 2015

DOROTHY TRISTAN vs. CITY OF FRESNO, AMERICAN ALL-RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for removal regarding a discovery order. The employer argued that releasing documents related to a prior DFEH/EEOC discrimination claim and allowing a continued deposition would cause irreparable harm due to privilege concerns. The Board found the employer failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, emphasizing that privilege objections can still be raised for specific documents. The Board also noted the prolonged discovery dispute and encouraged expeditious resolution of the underlying workers' compensation claims.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionDocument ProductionPrivileged RecordsDFEHEEOCLabor Code Section 132aDiscovery DisputeMandatory Settlement Conference
References
Case No. POM 234030
Regular
Jul 18, 2008

CAROL ALLISON vs. DEL AMO MOBILE ESTATES, SUPERIOR PACIFIC CASUALTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the administrative law judge's finding that Labor Code section 5710 does not allow attorney's fees for appellate work. The WCAB ruled that attorney fees are permissible under section 5710 for successfully litigating the scope of a deposition, including appellate proceedings, to protect an applicant's privacy and privilege. The case was returned to the trial level for a determination of a reasonable attorney fee amount.

Labor Code section 5710attorney feesdeposition scopeprivilegepatient-physician privilegemotion to compelpetition for removalCourt of Appealappellate reviewvocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA)
References
Case No. ADJ4363797
Regular
Jun 27, 2012

JOHN TRAN vs. TUNG KEE NOODLE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION in liquidation

This case concerns whether the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) can depose Lee Caballero, a non-attorney representative for lien claimant Dan Ho, D.C., regarding his relationship with Dr. Ho. CIGA seeks to determine if the lien was assigned to Caballero, which would exclude it from CIGA's coverage. The Board rescinded the prior order denying the deposition and allowed CIGA to depose Caballero about his agreement with Dr. Ho, provided a written agreement is not produced. However, the deposition is limited to questions concerning the assignment of the lien, excluding confidential communications about the claim's merits.

CIGAlien claimantnon-attorney lay representativedepositionassignmentInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(9)(B)confidentiality privilegeattorney-client privilegeattorney work product privilegecase of first impression
References
Case No. Misc. No. 254
En Banc
Sep 21, 2011

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs. Daniel Escamilla

Notice of a hearing to consider suspending or removing Daniel Escamilla's privilege to appear before the WCAB due to a pattern of repeated sanctions for bad-faith actions, frivolous tactics, and filing pleadings with false statements of fact.

Labor Code 4907Privilege SuspensionRemoval of PrivilegeBad Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsUnnecessary DelayWillful Non-ComplianceDisruption of ProceedingsMeritleless ArgumentsSanctions
References
Showing 1-10 of 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