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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ6916816
Regular
Feb 05, 2013

SARAH HOAGLAND vs. COUNTY OF YUBA

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant, Sarah Hoagland, who was ordered to produce business records and tax returns. The Appeals Board granted her Petition for Removal, ruling that her tax returns are privileged and cannot be compelled. However, Hoagland must produce her business records, though she may seek protective orders for third-party privacy concerns or request in-camera review. Charity records were deemed outside the subpoena's scope and require a more specific demand.

Petition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumTax Records PrivilegeRevenue and Taxation Code Section 19282Webb v. Standard Oil Co.Schnabel v. Superior CourtPublic Policy ExceptionConfidential Financial InformationThird-Party Privacy RightsProtective Order
References
Case No. ADJ10939613, ADJ11371215
Regular
Jan 22, 2019

BRIAN COLLINS vs. CITY OF VACAVILLE, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding an order that quashed subpoenas for an applicant's former employer personnel and medical records. The Board found that Evidence Code sections 1043-1046, which govern discovery of police personnel records, are not applicable to routine workers' compensation discovery. Filing a workers' compensation claim places the applicant's medical condition at issue, making these records essential for the defense. Therefore, requiring strict adherence to the *Pitchess* procedure would be an absurd procedural hurdle in this context.

Workers' CompensationPetition for RemovalQuashed SubpoenasPolice Officer Personnel RecordsEvidence Code Sections 1043-1046Penal Code Sections 832.7-832.8Pitchess MotionRoutine DiscoveryMedical RecordsPersonnel Records
References
Case No. ADJ7665162, ADJ7647930, ADJ7644904
Regular
Apr 11, 2014

MARTINA MONTANO vs. WEST COAST PLASTICS, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE CO., CYPRESS INSURANCE CO., INSURANCE CO. OF THE WEST

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded dismissal orders for lien claimants LYG Professional Medical Group and Southern California Sports Rehabilitation, and returned the matter to the trial level. This was because the dismissal orders were not properly served on the lien claimants' agent of record, MBS Systems. Additionally, the record was unclear as to whether MBS Systems' representative appeared at the lien conference. Consequently, the Board found further proceedings necessary to determine the status of the liens.

Lien ClaimantsPetition for ReconsiderationSelf-Executing OrderLien ConferenceDismissal with PrejudiceRule 10500(b)Designated ServiceAgent of RecordRule 10510Proof of Service
References
Case No. ADJ11046200
Regular
Oct 29, 2018

SHAWN JENEI vs. CASA LOMA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Med-Legal Photocopy, seeking payment for copying services related to an applicant's workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The primary issue was whether the lien claimant's services were compensable under Labor Code section 5307.9, which mandates a 30-day waiting period after an employer/insurer request for records before payment for copying services is allowed. The Board found that the applicant's attorney did not wait the requisite 30 days before issuing subpoenas for the records, thus disallowing the lien.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDMed-Legal PhotocopyPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJLabor Code § 5307.9subpoenasmedical recordscustodian of recordsclaims administrator
References
Case No. ADJ8201128
Regular
May 14, 2013

Barry Swartwood vs. UC DAVIS

This case concerns a lien claimant, ARS Legal, seeking payment for medical-legal copy costs incurred in the workers' compensation case of Barry Swartwood v. UC Davis. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied ARS Legal's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding. The WCAB determined that the costs were not reasonably or necessarily incurred, citing that ARS Legal obtained duplicate records after defendant Sedgwick had already objected to payment for such duplicative services. Furthermore, the records ARS Legal obtained were incomplete compared to those acquired by the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBarry SwartwoodUC DavisSedgwickADJ8201128Order Denying ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4621(a)medical-legal copy costsStipulations with Request for Awardlien claimant
References
Case No. ADJ11160722, ADJ11383679, ADJ11398700
Regular
Feb 27, 2020

GREG EISERT vs. CITY OF VACAVILLE, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding an order that quashed subpoenas for an applicant police officer's personnel records. The Board ruled that Evidence Code sections 1043-1046 do not apply to routine discovery of medical and injury-related records in workers' compensation cases when an applicant puts their health at issue. However, the request for "POST" documents was returned to the trial level for further determination as their nature and relevance to routine discovery were unclear. The Board aims for substantial justice, emphasizing that procedural technicalities should not impede necessary discovery in such claims.

Petition for RemovalEvidence Code 1043Penal Code 832.7Personnel RecordsPeace OfficerRoutine DiscoveryMedical RecordsInjury-Related RecordsPOST DocumentsSubpoena Duces Tecum
References
Case No. ADJ9972033
Regular
Aug 18, 2015

BRIAN DEL ROSARIO vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., LIBERY INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's mootness order, and remanded the case for a decision on the merits of the employer's motion to quash. The employer argued that a subpoena duces tecum for ten years of employment records was overly broad and burdensome, and reconsideration later would not be adequate. The Board found the employer demonstrated substantial prejudice and irreparable harm due to the breadth of the request and a drafting error in the original motion. A dissenting opinion argued removal was inappropriate as the employer's error, not the WCJ's, created the issue, and the employer had an adequate remedy by refiling.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashMootnessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJAdministrative Law JudgeDiscovery Dispute
References
Case No. ADJ7700512
Regular
Jan 27, 2017

John E. Skaff vs. CITY OF STOCKTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision denying a police officer's claim for prostate cancer. The applicant sought an adverse inference against the City of Stockton for failing to produce Hazard Awareness Recognition Program (HARP) forms allegedly detailing chemical exposures during methamphetamine lab investigations. The Board rescinded the prior decision, returning the case for further development of the record. This is to determine whether the City had a duty to retain and produce the HARP forms, and if the applicant exercised reasonable diligence in seeking them. The Board will then allow the WCJ to decide if an adverse inference is warranted and issue a new decision.

Hazard Awareness Recognition ProgramHARP formsadverse inferenceindustrial causationprostate cancerchemical exposuremethamphetamine labspolice officerQualified Medical ExaminerDr. Juan Cesar Larach
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,343 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