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. 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 The Board rescinded the prior order denying the deposition and allowed CIGA to depose Caballero about his agreement with Dr.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
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. ADJ3256213 (AHM 0147852)
Regular
Feb 11, 2013

SHIRLEY LAPPI vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a dispute over attorney-client privilege concerning documents within an employer's workers' compensation claims file. The defendant sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's order to disclose certain documents. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, finding the order was not final, and granted removal. The Board rescinded the order and remanded the case for appointment of a special master to conduct an in camera review of the disputed documents.

Privilege LogAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineIn Camera ReviewSpecial MasterPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalFindings and OrderDiscoveryClaims File
References
Case No. ADJ12349952
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

Dinh Tran vs. UL, LLC; Federal Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted in part a petition for removal filed by Dinh Tran, who sought to prevent the discovery of raw testing data from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) due to privacy concerns. While affirming the underlying Findings and Orders on its merits, the Board intervened to correct a clerical error and amend the orders regarding the confidentiality of medical records. The amended order strictly limits the reproduction and disclosure of raw testing materials and data, requiring their destruction after litigation and mandating defense counsel to ensure confidentiality and report any violations, thereby safeguarding the applicant's privacy rights.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorRaw Testing DataRight to PrivacyClerical ErrorsSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWaiver of PrivilegeNarrowly Circumscribed DisclosureConfidentiality
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. 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. ADJ8424952
Regular
Sep 10, 2014

ALFONSO CRUZ vs. SIERRA CIRCUITS, INC.; THE HARTFORD

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal regarding deposition questions about medical history and insurance coverage. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition in part, allowing questions about medical insurance and personal doctors, as these are discoverable under CCP § 2017.010. However, the WCAB found questions about past medical treatment paid by others and prior hospitalizations to be overbroad, as they could infringe on the physician-patient privilege regarding unrelated conditions. The Board ordered the applicant to answer specific questions but requires defendants to reframe broader questions concerning medical history to avoid privileged information.

Petition for RemovalFifth AmendmentFirst Amendmentphysician-patient privilegeconfidential communicationindustrial injurymedical historydeposition questionsCode of Civil Procedure section 2017.010Evidence Code sections 990
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. ADJ9749879
Regular
Mar 22, 2017

HERNAN VILLACIS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPT.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the previous findings of fact and returned the case for further proceedings. The central issue is whether the applicant's fall from a four-story building was an industrial injury or an intentional self-inflicted act. The Board found that the trial level erred by excluding the applicant's wife's testimony, which may have provided crucial evidence on the applicant's mental state. Furthermore, the Board noted the lack of medical evidence to definitively determine if the fall was suicidal, requiring further development of the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationSelf-Inflicted InjuryMarital PrivilegeFall from HeightIntentional JumpSlip and FallCredibility DeterminationMedical Evidence
References
Showing 1-10 of 108 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