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. ADJ11155531
Regular
Apr 01, 2020

PATRICK ALLEN vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for removal, rescinded an order compelling attendance at a medical examination, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the order violated due process because the applicant did not receive prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. The WCJ issued the order as a "walk-through document" without adhering to the required notice of intention procedure. The Board emphasized that due process requires notice and an opportunity to challenge adverse actions before they are issued.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to be HeardPetition to Compel AttendanceAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Walk-through documentWCAB Rule 10789(h)
References
Case No. ADJ7096387; ADJ7096382
Regular
Feb 23, 2012

CHRISTOPHER LEEN vs. CHART HOUSE ENTERPRISES, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and rescinded an order compelling the applicant's attendance at a medical evaluation. The applicant argued they were denied due process because the judge issued the order compelling attendance and suspending proceedings just one day after the applicant received the defendant's petition, without a hearing or proper notice. The Board agreed that the rapid issuance of the order violated due process rights, particularly as it suspended the applicant's ability to proceed with their case. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, allowing the applicant an opportunity to be heard.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceMedical EvaluationAgreed Medical EvaluatorDue ProcessPetition to CompelNotice of IntentionWalk-through PetitionAppeals Board Rule
References
Case No. ADJ4242717 (VNO 0420852) ADJ7278860
Regular
Sep 28, 2016

PHILLIP WILLIAMS vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION - CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding a WCJ's order compelling former attorney John Ferrone to attend trial as a witness. The Board found that the only subpoena issued for Ferrone was to attend a trial date that had long passed, was not personally served, and had potentially been withdrawn. Compelling a witness's attendance requires a valid subpoena, and no such valid subpoena existed for the current trial date.

Petition for RemovalAttorney-Client PrivilegeSubpoenaWCJ OrderFraud or MistakeStipulation and OrderMotion to QuashAttorney as WitnessCompelled AttendancePercipient Witness
References
Case No. ADJ3604849 (VNO 0545037)
Regular
Aug 17, 2009

TOMAS ARAMBULA vs. TODD RUTKIN, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed petitions for reconsideration filed by Tami Navon and Ira Reinherz, D.C., finding the challenged orders compelling deposition attendance were interlocutory. The WCAB denied Reinherz's petition for removal, stating he failed to demonstrate prejudice from being compelled to attend his deposition as a lien claimant. However, the WCAB granted Navon's petition for removal, rescinding the order compelling her deposition as she is not a party or lien claimant and required proper subpoena service.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationPetitionDepositionCompel AttendanceLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeInterlocutory OrdersSubstantive Right
References
Case No. ADJ 6962762, ADJ4127525 (SBR 0330147), ADJ9551358
Regular
Feb 19, 2016

HARMEET KAUR vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

The applicant filed two petitions challenging orders compelling attendance at a deposition and a PQME. The Appeals Board dismissed the first petition as it sought reconsideration of a non-final order. The Board then granted removal on the second petition, setting aside the order compelling the PQME attendance due to potential prejudice from an alleged agreed medical evaluation. Reconsideration was denied for both petitions as they addressed interlocutory matters.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionOrder Compelling PQMEWCJAgreed Medical Evaluation (AME)Interlocutory OrderFinal OrderRule 10859
References
Case No. ADJ11377839 ADJ11377840
Regular
Jul 09, 2019

OLIVIA BARAJAS vs. JUSTIN VINEYARDS & WINERY, LLC, BROADSPIRE

The applicant sought reconsideration or removal of an order compelling her attendance at a deposition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration as untimely and denied the petition for removal. The WCAB found the order compelling attendance was an interlocutory discovery order, not a final decision, and thus not subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for the extraordinary remedy of removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceDepositionWCJDiscovery OrderFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ4067591 (VNO 0551402) ADJ4308603 (VNO 0559555)
Regular
Apr 12, 2011

MARIA BARAJAS vs. CONCERTO, INC., dba CITRON SPA, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY

This case involves Dr. Herbert Marshak's petition for removal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order compelling his deposition. The Board denied the petition, deeming removal an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. Marshak's claims that he was not a proper party to the deposition and that his due process rights were violated were rejected. The Board found his deposition had commenced and was continued, and he failed to object to the order compelling his attendance.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeDepositionNotice to ProduceJewish SabbathDue ProcessCompelling AttendanceSanctionsContempt Proceedings
References
Case No. ADJ218892 (OXN 0145664)
Regular
May 01, 2012

JACOBO GARCIA ALVARO vs. SAN MARINO PLASTERING, INC., LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE, Administered by CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order compelling attendance at a medical examination was not a final order. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable injury to justify removal. Additionally, the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was unverified, and the defect was not cured despite notice, further supporting its dismissal. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the WCJ's order for the applicant to attend the examination.

Panel Qualified Medical ExaminationPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJfinal ordersubstantive rightsirreparable harmsubstantial prejudiceverificationLabor Code section 5902
References
Case No. ADJ2907841 (AHM 0137070), ADJ4135661 (AHM 0141170), ADJ3362903 (AHM 0141171)
Regular
May 20, 2015

FRANCISCA AREVALO ALVAREZ vs. ANAHEIM MAINGATE FAIRFIELD INN, MARRIOTT CLAIMS SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal due to procedural error. The applicant was not afforded an opportunity to be heard on the defendant's Petition to Compel Attendance at a medical examination. Consequently, the prior Order compelling attendance was rescinded. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, where the WCJ can reconsider the defendant's petition.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling Attendance at Medical ExaminationWCAB Rule 10349Labor Code section 4050Agreed Medical Evaluatorcross-examinationDeclaration of Readiness to Proceedstatus conferencerescindedtrial level
References
Case No. ADJ10145265
Regular
Jul 21, 2017

KUSUM NARAYAN vs. ESKATON PROPERTIES, INC.

This case involves a worker's compensation applicant seeking disqualification of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The applicant alleges the ALJ ignored the statute of limitations by allowing the defendant to accept some injuries while denying others after eleven years, and erroneously ordered the applicant to attend a QME exam with another patient's medical records. The ALJ's report details a history of discovery disputes and orders compelling attendance at medical evaluations, noting that no witnesses have been sworn. The Appeals Board adopted the ALJ's report, finding no grounds for disqualification and denying the applicant's petition.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPQMESupplemental PleadingRule 10848Nature and Extent of InjuryCompel AttendancePanel QMEStatute of Limitations
References
Showing 1-10 of 476 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