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. LAO 862841
Regular
Feb 28, 2008

BAHATI H. SALAS vs. LIVHOME, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and quashed the applicant's notice for a second deposition of Dr. Peterson. The Board found no good cause for a second deposition, as the applicant's representative was present at the first and failed to question Dr. Peterson on relevant matters despite having all necessary documentation. Allowing repeated depositions without changed circumstances would be neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contradicting the Board's mandate.

RemovalMotion to QuashDepositionAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Due ProcessGood CauseCredibilitySubsequent DepositionLabor Code 4062.3Substantial Justice
References
Case No. ANA 0400591
Regular
May 05, 2008

ALEXANDER SPITZ vs. PEPSI BOTTLING COMPANY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinded a prior order from the administrative law judge, and quashed the applicant's subpoena duces tecum. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for the requested documents and that the protracted proceedings surrounding the subpoena were neither expeditious nor inexpensive, contrary to public policy. The applicant may issue a new, narrowly drawn subpoena if future disputes necessitate document production.

RemovalPetition for RemovalQuash Subpoena Duces TecumCode of Civil Procedure Section 1985(b)Good CauseMaterialityPublic PolicySubstantial JusticeExpeditiouslyInexpensively
References
Case No. ADJ7242258
Regular
Feb 21, 2012

ANGELICA ALVARADO vs. SIZZLER, INTERCARE, AMERICAN CLAIMS

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a WCAB order dismissing her workers' compensation claim for lack of prosecution. The applicant's claim was dismissed under WCAB Rule 10582 after the defendant filed a petition and the WCJ issued a notice of intention to dismiss. Although the applicant filed timely objections stating she was continuing discovery and treatment, the WCJ proceeded with the dismissal. The majority denied reconsideration, noting the dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the applicant to refile or seek to set aside the order. One Commissioner dissented, arguing the dismissal abused discretion given the timely objections and that the majority's solution creates unnecessary procedural hurdles, contradicting the system's goal of expeditious resolution.

WCAB Rule 10582Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing CaseLack of ProsecutionNotice of Intention to DismissGood CauseObjections to DismissalDiscovery ContinuesMedical TreatmentLabor Code Section 5803
References
Case No. ADJ3501807 (SRO 0141934)
Regular
Sep 08, 2011

JESSICA REYNOLDS vs. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal seeking to replace a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The defendant argued the QME violated Administrative Director Rule 34(b) by scheduling an exam at an unlisted address. However, the Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal. The Board agreed with the WCJ's finding that the objection appeared to be an attempt at "doctor shopping" and gamesmanship, contrary to the policy of substantial justice.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorReplacement Panel QMELabor Code section 4062.2Administrative Director Rule 34(b)substantial prejudiceirreparable harmdoctor shoppinggamesmanshipsocial public policy
References
Case No. AD460672 (SFO 0499592) ADJ1224818 (SFO 0499593)
Regular
Mar 16, 2011

HAMID KHAZAELI vs. SPEDIA.COM INC. and SYSMASTER CORP.; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The applicant, Hamid Khazaeli, filed petitions for disqualification and removal of the presiding judge, alleging bias due to the judge prioritizing the vexatious litigant issue. The Appeals Board reviewed the record and found no evidence of bias or prejudice to support disqualification. The Board also denied removal, finding the applicant's actions consistently delay proceedings, contradicting his stated desire for prompt resolution. Therefore, both petitions were denied, and the cases were returned to the trial level.

Petition for DisqualificationPetition for Removalvexatious litigantpresiding workers' compensation administrative law judgeAppeals Boardrescinded orderserious and willful misconductemployer discriminationcosts and feescontempt
References
Case No. ADJ4571463 (AHM 0150883)
Regular
Jan 02, 2013

DANIEL LE COMPTE vs. VOLCOM, INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an administrative law judge's dismissal of applicant Daniel Le Compte's case for lack of prosecution. The WCAB found no good reason to force the applicant to refile when he expressed a desire to proceed with his claim, especially given the system's policy favoring expedited and inexpensive dispute resolution. The Board emphasized the overriding policy to decide claims on their merits. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABReconsiderationDismissalLack of ProsecutionRule 10582ExpeditiousInexpensiveRescindedMeritsRelated Case
References
Case No. ADJ3134104 (MON 0361046)
Regular
May 01, 2012

NARCISO ESTRADA vs. GOLD STAR JEWELRY INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, which sought to change a scheduled mandatory settlement conference (MSC) to a trial. The Board held that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, neither of which was demonstrated. The applicant's contention that a brief delay for an MSC would cause irreparable harm was rejected. Therefore, the petition was denied as the applicant did not meet the stringent standards for removal.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJOrder Rescinding and Vacating OrderMandatory Settlement Conference (MSC)substantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationexpeditiouslyextraordinary remedy
References
Case No. ADJ814506 (LAO 0730622)
Regular
Apr 13, 2012

MANUEL VALDOVINOS vs. ALTRA FILTERS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CAMBRIDGE for RELIANCE INSURANCE GROUP

The applicant and defendant jointly petitioned for removal and automatic reassignment of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to alleged delays and prejudice, arguing the WCJ's actions violated their right to an expeditious adjudication. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding it untimely and lacking grounds for disqualification. The Board noted that removal is only granted for significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated here. However, the Board expressed concern over the alleged delays and urged the parties and WCJ to proceed expeditiously.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAutomatic ReassignmentJudge DisqualificationUntimely PetitionIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceOrder Vacating Order of SubmissionLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641
References
Case No. ADJ8718900
Regular
Jun 27, 2019

JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ RAYA vs. JOANNE RUIZ, dba J'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the judge's order that denied a motion to quash a deposition of defense counsel. The Board found that depositions of opposing counsel are disfavored and require a high standard of cause, which was not met. Furthermore, the judge denied the motion without a hearing or proper justification, violating due process. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for well-supported discovery requests given the age of the claim.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashDeposition of Defense CounselOpposing Counsel DepositionDisfavored DiscoveryIntoxication DefenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(4)Burden of ProofPanel QMEStipulation
References
Case No. ADJ3204491 (SAC 0348071) ADJ1881599 (SAC 0348072) ADJ1315585 (SAC 0348073) ADJ1203378 (SAC 0348074)
Regular
Jan 12, 2009

DANIEL UNGUREANU vs. A. TEICHERT & SON, Permissibly SelfInsured, Adjusted By BRAGG & ASSOCIATES

The WCAB dismissed defendant’s petition for reconsideration but granted their petition for removal, rescinding the WCJ’s order for a new QME panel due to the applicant's delay in objecting to the untimeliness of the initial report. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelLabor Code § 4062.5untimelinesswaiversignificant prejudiceexpeditious litigation
References
Showing 1-10 of 26 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