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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
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. ADJ9750218
Regular
Oct 07, 2015

RAMIRO LOPEZ vs. PENTERMAN FARMING COMPANY, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding a WCJ's order limiting discovery of medical records to the applicant's musculoskeletal system. The defendant argued this limitation denied due process and prejudiced their defense, but the Board found that the applicant only waives physician-patient privilege for conditions put in issue by the claim. Discovery beyond the claimed injury must be demonstrably relevant and justified by specific information, which the defendant failed to establish. The Board concluded the WCJ's order appropriately balanced the applicant's privacy with the defendant's discovery needs.

Petition for RemovalSubpoenas Duces TecumOrder Limiting SubpoenasMusculoskeletal SystemDue ProcessMotion to QuashDeclaration of ReadinessPatient-Litigant ExceptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeScope of Discovery
References
Case No. ADJ982538 (SAC 0225494)
Regular
Jun 09, 2009

GARY SEABROOKS vs. BFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS, RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed applicant Gary Seabrooks' numerous petitions because they were filed without a corresponding final determination. The WCAB removed the case on its own motion to address Seabrooks' pattern of repeatedly filing unmeritorious and harassing documents, which has consumed significant board resources. Consequently, the WCAB has issued a notice of intention to declare Seabrooks a vexatious litigant and impose a prefiling order, restricting his ability to file future documents without prior leave. This action is intended to prevent further abuse of the workers' compensation system and allow for the expeditious resolution of other parties' cases.

Vexatious litigantpropria personapetitions for reconsiderationdismissalremovalnotice of intentionRule 10782Labor Code section 5310unmeritorious petitionsharassment
References
Case No. ADJ10488034
Regular
May 07, 2018

GILDO BEITIA vs. CITY OF OAKLAND

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition for removal, upholding an administrative law judge's order that limited the defendant's subpoenas for medical records. The defendant argued this order denied due process and improperly restricted discovery into non-industrial conditions affecting the applicant's alleged injuries. The WCAB found the subpoenas were impermissibly overbroad under existing precedent, which limits discovery to matters directly relevant to the claimed injuries. A dissenting opinion argued the limitations were too restrictive, especially for conditions like weight gain and hypertension which can have numerous causes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashCompensable Consequence InjuriesDiscovery LimitationsPatient-Litigant ExceptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeOverbroad SubpoenaDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ6747918
Regular
Dec 27, 2010

BERNARD ELKINS vs. SCULLY DISTRIBUTIONS SERVICES, HARTFORD SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the underlying order denying sanctions without prejudice was not a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm required for such an extraordinary remedy. The defendant had sought sanctions for alleged frivolous litigation, but the judge ordered them to first resolve venue disputes in a related San Bernardino case. This decision upholds the principle that reconsideration and removal are reserved for final orders or exceptional circumstances.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removalsanctionsfrivolous litigationbad-faith litigationvenuechoice of venuewithout prejudicefinal order
References
Case No. ADJ4227582
Regular
Nov 18, 2011

BOBBY CLEMENTS vs. GEORGE REED, INC., TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves an applicant seeking removal of a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) after an order compelling disclosure of specific records. The applicant claimed bias, Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and privacy rights for corporate records. The Appeals Board denied the petition, clarifying that removal requires more than disagreement with a ruling and that the Fifth Amendment privilege is waived when a party initiates litigation and the requested information is relevant to their claim. The Board found no evidence of bias and ruled that the applicant could not use the privilege to obstruct relevant discovery essential for the defendant's defense.

Petition for RemovalWCJ biasFifth Amendmentself-incriminationevidentiary privilegespatient-litigant exceptionwaiverdiscoveryadministrative law judgeworkers' compensation
References
Case No. ADJ1122093 (SAC 0279029) ADJ988134 (SAC 0267349)
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

BOBBIE SANDERS vs. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Bobbie Sanders, previously declared a vexatious litigant under Rule 10782, filed a Petition for Removal without court approval. Rule 10782 requires pre-filing authorization for pro se litigants, with exceptions for licensed attorneys. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because there was no significant change in circumstances or new evidence to warrant re-litigation of previously determined issues. Therefore, the document was not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantpre-filing orderAppeals Board Rule 10782Petition for Removalin pro perworkers' compensationEmployment Development DepartmentState Compensation Insurance FundADJ1122093ADJ988134
References
Case No. ADJ6487668
Regular
May 02, 2016

Sherman Draper vs. OSA GROUP, INC./LACCD/OCIP; ACE USA, administered by ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The petition was dismissed because it was untimely, filed significantly after the statutory deadline for reconsideration following the WCJ's decision. Additionally, the Board would have dismissed the petition as successive because it raised the same issues as a prior, unsuccessful petition, and no new evidence was presented. The Board warned the applicant about potential vexatious litigant proceedings for continued attempts to litigate final orders.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitSuccessive PetitionNewly AggrievedNew Evidence ExceptionVexatious LitigantWCAB Rule 10507WCAB Rule 10508WCJ Decision
References
Showing 1-10 of 341 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