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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2000

Simon v. Philip Morris Inc.

This memorandum and order addresses the preliminary issues of class certification in a nationwide smoker class action. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of individuals who developed lung cancer due to smoking defendants' cigarettes. The defendants, referred to as "Tobacco," challenge the claims' substantive and factual viability, as well as the suitability for class action, citing varied state laws under the Erie doctrine and due process concerns. Senior District Judge Weinstein, acknowledging the complexities, reserves the decision on class certification and grants a preliminary evidentiary hearing. The court explores potential approaches to manage diverse state laws and discusses the necessity of plaintiffs demonstrating a feasible trial structure for a large class.

Class ActionSmoker Class ActionTobacco LitigationLung CancerClass CertificationRule 23Erie DoctrineConflict of LawsMultistate LitigationDue Process
References
12
Case No. ADJ9139200
Regular
Dec 11, 2015

MATTHEW BAKES vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Matthew Bakes' petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order. California law requires petitions for reconsideration to be based on "final" orders that determine substantive rights, liabilities, or threshold issues, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary decisions. The WCJ's decision at issue here only resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary matter. Thus, it was not a final order, and the petition was procedurally improper.

Petition for ReconsiderationNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightLiabilityThreshold issueInterlocutoryProcedural decisionsEvidentiary decisionsRemoval
References
5
Case No. ADJ11563618, ADJ11563620, ADJ11563654
Regular
May 02, 2019

MARIA LUQUE VIDALES vs. FOSTER FARMS, FOSTER FARMS LIVINGSTON

The WCAB granted applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order for a replacement QME panel. The original order was issued without an admitted evidentiary record, violating the requirement for decisions to be based on substantial evidence. The case is returned to the trial level to establish a proper record and adjudicate the disputed QME issue. This decision ensures due process by requiring an evidentiary basis before significant procedural orders are made.

Petition for RemovalReplacement QME PanelUntimely Supplemental ReportDiscovery DelayIrreparable HarmSubstantial EvidenceEvidentiary RecordRescind OrderReturn to Trial LevelFoster Farms
References
6
Case No. ADJ7644740
Regular
Dec 19, 2011

MIGUEL GARCIA vs. G.D. HEIL, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the previous Findings and Order because the applicant raised valid issues regarding the employer's compliance with Medical Provider Network (MPN) notice requirements and the admissibility of evidence. The WCAB found the initial determination on temporary disability and MPN validity lacked sufficient evidentiary support and noted a contradiction between the WCJ's initial findings and later report. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to address these evidentiary and notice issues properly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)Temporary DisabilitySelf-Procured Medical TreatmentNotice RequirementsPre-Trial Conference StatementAdmissibility of EvidenceLabor Code Section 4600Labor Code Section 4616Administrative Director's Rule 9767.12(a)
References
6
Case No. ADJ2138659
Regular
Dec 05, 2011

JOSE MARIO MENJIVAR vs. FOREST RIVER, INC., SENTRY CLAIMS SERVICE

This case involves L. E. Lopez Chiropractic, Inc.'s petition for reconsideration of a WCJ's denial of its lien. The WCJ found no evidentiary support for the lien, as the claimant was treated outside the defendant's medical provider network without authorization. The Appeals Board is dismissing the petition as skeletal and frivolous, and is issuing a notice of intention to impose sanctions against both the lien claimant and its representative for wasting Board resources. The Board intends to sanction them $1,500 unless they show good cause within 15 days.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Lien ClaimantWCJMPNDate of Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. GRO 32603 GRO 33231
Regular
Nov 20, 2007

JAMES CANALES vs. RICE DRYWALL, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded prior findings and remanded the case due to significant procedural and evidentiary deficiencies. Specifically, the Board highlighted the lack of a proper hearing record, ambiguity regarding the commencement date for temporary disability payments, and an unresolved issue concerning an attorney's fee award for an EDD lien. The WCJ must now address these issues before issuing new decisions.

Labor Code section 4656(c)(1)temporary disability indemnity104-week limitmultiple injuriesdelayed treatmentEmployment Development Department (EDD) lienattorney's feecumulative traumadate of injurydate of commencement of temporary disability payment
References
2
Case No. ADJ10992611
Regular
Aug 07, 2018

MARIA LOPEZ vs. CAR CARE, INC.; REPUBLIC INDEMNITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final order addressing an evidentiary issue. The WCAB found that the order did not determine any substantive rights or liabilities nor a threshold issue. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB concluded that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalfinal ordersubstantive rightliabilitythreshold issueinterlocutory proceduralevidentiary issueextraordinary remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ9323388 ADJ9392268
Regular
Mar 20, 2019

GERALD PHIPPS vs. FRITO-LAY, ACE AMERICAN INS.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the original Findings and Order due to issues surrounding ex parte communication with a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) and the admissibility of his reports. The WCAB found that the record was unclear regarding whether the applicant's wife's communications and notes provided to the QME constituted a violation of Labor Code section 4062.3 and whether the employer objected in a timely manner. Consequently, the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify these evidentiary and procedural issues. The WCAB also affirmed the trial judge's discretion to defer other issues for later adjudication.

AOE/COEex parte communicationQMEinadmissiblePetition for Removalreconsiderationsubstantial evidencecollateral sourceLabor Code section 4062.3medical-legal evaluator
References
19
Case No. ADJ10112147
Regular
Aug 01, 2025

STEVE BOTTO vs. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a Petition for Removal, along with the Answer and the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report. The Board concluded that the WCJ's underlying decision primarily resolved an intermediate procedural or evidentiary issue, rather than a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities, or a fundamental threshold issue. Consequently, the Petition was appropriately filed as one for removal, not reconsideration. However, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from a denial of removal, or that reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy if an adverse final decision were ultimately issued. Based on these findings, the Petition for Removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightThreshold IssueSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 9,158 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