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. ADJ4444900
Regular
Oct 19, 2011

JACQUELIN NORTON vs. PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVIES

This case involves an applicant's petition for removal to challenge an order vacating submission for further medical evaluation. The applicant argued the order would cause irreparable harm and violate due process. However, the Appeals Board denied the petition, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm would result from appointing a new regular physician for orthopedic assessment. The Board noted deficiencies in existing reports and good cause for a fresh evaluation, concluding that any delay, given the case's age, was not sufficiently prejudicial. Reconsideration remains a proper avenue to raise objections to medical reports after the record is developed.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionAppointing Regular PhysicianL.C. § 5701orthopedic medicineprejudiceirreparable harmdue processLabor Code section 4663(c)apportionment determination
References
Case No. ADJ10321614
Regular
Nov 17, 2017

KURT SAALFELD vs. CITY OF TRACY

The Appeals Board denied applicant's Petition for Removal seeking a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. Applicant objected to defendant's letter to the QME via email, but defendant had previously informed applicant they do not accept email service. The Board found applicant's email objection improperly served as there was no agreement for electronic service. Therefore, the Board concluded that applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelLabor Code section 4062.3(b)Rule 10505service by emailobjection to QME letterpeace officer
References
Case No. SFO 0475100
Regular
May 01, 2008

KEVIN HEUMANN vs. FEELY TRUCKING CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration and denied removal, finding that the WCJ's order denying disqualification of an Agreed Medical Evaluator was not a final order subject to reconsideration. The Board also concluded that removal was not warranted as the applicant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from a brief ex parte communication between the opposing counsel and the AME. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that no substantive issues were discussed and the communication did not impact the AME's conclusions.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorDisqualificationEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code 4062.3Petition for ReconsiderationDenying RemovalWCJ ReportFinal OrderSubstantive RightInterlocutory Order
References
Case No. ADJ7776671
Regular
Sep 11, 2013

LAWRENCE FERNANDEZ vs. LA CENTERS FOR ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY c/o ILLINOIS MIDWEST

The applicant sought removal to rescind an order continuing the case for trial, arguing prejudicial error in not allowing further discovery on non-orthopedic claims. The Appeals Board denied the petition because removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ explicitly reserved the issue of good cause for further discovery to the trial judge, making reconsideration an adequate remedy. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10848WCJDiscoveryNon-orthopedic claimsPsychiatric QMEInternal Medicine QMEMandatory Settlement ConferenceTrialSubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ11179850
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

WAYNE ESP vs. CAMBRON ROOFING AND WATERPROOFING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a defendant's Petition for Removal of an administrative order setting a trial date. The defendant argued the order would cause irreparable harm, but failed to demonstrate how presenting an intoxication defense at trial would be prejudicial. The WCAB found that any issues regarding a qualified medical evaluator could be addressed by the judge at trial, thus no extraordinary remedy of removal was warranted. The matter will proceed to trial as scheduled.

Petition for RemovalIndustrial CausationAffirmative DefenseIntoxicationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPQMEToxicologySignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmMinute Order
References
Case No. ADJ8185753
Regular
Jul 23, 2015

JUAN ZEPEDA vs. BERBERIAN NUT COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES. INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal. The defendant sought to remove a finding and order requiring a new medical evaluation by an internist, arguing it was unnecessary and prejudicial. The Board found that the applicant demonstrated good cause for the additional evaluation, supported by prior medical reports and testimony indicating the need for an internist to assess specific industrial complaints. The Board concluded the defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Petition for RemovalFinding and OrderQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Internal MedicineDisputed Medical IssueDWC Regulation 31.7(b)Substantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ Report and RecommendationMedical Record Development
References
Case No. ADJ11211443
Regular
Sep 12, 2019

YOLANDA BARROSO vs. HARTNELL COLLEGE, KEENAN \u0026 ASSOCIATES

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal after a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) judge ruled that chiropractic care was an appropriate specialty for the applicant's injuries. The defendant argued that the ruling was premature and prejudicial, seeking a replacement QME panel in a different specialty. However, the WCAB denied the petition, finding the defendant waived its right to challenge the specialty by not raising the issue earlier. The WCAB also determined the defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or significant prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorQME specialtychiropracticcollateral estoppelwaiverres judicatairreparable harm
References
Case No. ADJ9 989540
Regular
Apr 13, 2016

FELIX GARCIA vs. EUREST FINE DINING, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, upholding the administrative law judge's decision to allow a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel in neurology. The applicant argued this was prejudicial as his primary treating physician was a chiropractor, but the Board found he failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The WCJ's report, which the Board adopted, noted that a neurologist was best qualified to evaluate potential radicular pain and nerve conduction studies. Therefore, removal was deemed an extraordinary remedy not warranted in this case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating PhysicianSpecialtyChiropracticNeurologyIndustrial InjuryRadicular PainEMG/NCS
References
Case No. ADJ9549383
Regular
Jul 10, 2017

JUANA ZELEDON DE TREMINIO vs. ESPOSTOS FINE FOODS INC. dba BOX LUNCH CO.

The defendant sought removal of the WCJ's orders to reopen discovery and take the case off calendar, arguing the applicant lacked due diligence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's minute orders, and returned the case for trial without further discovery. The Board found the WCJ erred by taking the case off calendar and reopening discovery before trial, as there was no established record of deficient medical reports to justify such actions. The question of due diligence and substantial evidence should be determined based on admitted evidence at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMinute OrdersReopening DiscoveryOff CalendarDue DiligencePrejudicialIrreparably HarmfulMedical Provider Network (MPN)Continuity of Care
References
Case No. ADJ10650148, ADJ10650276
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

MEIMY AWAD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/USC MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted, requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationWCJ reportextraordinary remedyADJ10650148ADJ10650276Meimy Awad
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,882 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