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. ADJ3080176 (LAO 0871214)
Regular
Sep 14, 2018

ROSS ISAACS vs. DOUG APATOW AGENCY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's order allowing the deposition of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Berman. Defendant argued the deposition was improper because Dr. Berman's prior reports were stricken from the record. However, the Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, noting the order permitted further record development. The Board clarified that even if Dr. Berman's reports were considered stricken, the WCJ could still develop the record by seeking supplemental information from the AME.

Removal petitionAgreed Medical EvaluatorOtorhinolaryngologyMinute OrderPetition to StrikeOrder Taking Case Off CalendarSupplemental medical reportsDepositionSubstantial prejudiceIrreparable harm
References
10
Case No. ADJ818515 (STK 0156113)
Regular
Jan 23, 2003

Carlos Espino vs. G.S.E. CONSTRUCTION, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Reconsideration granted to amend prior Findings, Award and Orders; Dr. Shelub's lien stricken; decision otherwise affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentSubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionLabor Code Section 4903Lien ClaimAdmissibility of EvidenceFindings of Fact
References
18
Case No. 1099
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Stature Electric, Inc.

The court ruled on a motion to strike the supplemental appendix and specific sections of the brief submitted by respondent David W. Howard. The motion was granted to the extent that the material in the brief referencing the supplemental appendix is deemed stricken. However, the motion to strike was otherwise denied.

Motion to strikeSupplemental appendixBriefCourt procedureProcedural ruling
References
0
Case No. ADJ4193239
Regular
Feb 10, 2010

SERGIO OSEGUERA vs. LINKS COMMUNICATIONS, ZURICH SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the previous award, ordering the reports of Dr. Baker stricken from the record. This was due to defendant's violation of Board Rule 10718 by communicating directly with the WCJ-appointed physician, compromising the appearance of impartiality. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision based on properly admitted substantial medical evidence.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLINKS COMMUNICATIONSZURICH SAN FRANCISCOADJ4193239OSEGUERARECONSIDERATIONFINDINGS AND AWARDPERMANENT DISABILITYAPPORTIONMENTAGREED MEDICAL EXAMINER
References
1
Case No. ADJ6590798; ADJ6590824
Regular
May 08, 2012

ELEANOR CASTILLO vs. SENIOR HELPER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SCO

The defendant sought to have the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) amend the Minutes of Hearing to include certain "stricken" issues. The WCAB denied this Petition for Removal. They agreed with the judge that the defendant's proposed issues, such as estoppel and contract law, are matters for the judge to consider when determining the enforceability of a lien settlement. The Board found no reason to bifurcate the issues, as evidence and testimony on all matters were already present.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMinutes of Hearinglien settlementenforceable agreementbifurcate issuesapplicant's injurycourse of employmentcosts and sanctions
References
0
Case No. ADJ3225136
Regular
Apr 21, 2011

MICHAEL GIAMMONA vs. FISHER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and rescinded a prior order that denied the defendant's motion for a new Qualified Medical Examiner (QME). The Board found that the applicant's post-evaluation, unserved letter to the QME constituted an ex parte communication, which is prohibited by statute and requires a new QME panel. Consequently, the QME's reports were stricken, and a new panel was ordered. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as the original order was procedural, not final.

Panel Qualified Medical ExaminerPQMEEx parte communicationLabor Code Section 4062.3RemovalReconsiderationAdministrative law judgeWCJPain managementAutomobile accident
References
0
Case No. ADJ16131890
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

VERONICA JIMENEZ vs. ABM INDUSTRIES, ESIS CHATSWORTH

The applicant, Veronica Jimenez, sought reconsideration of a June 20, 2025 Findings of Fact and Award which found injuries to several body parts but not to the psyche or insomnia. Applicant contended that the QME report was not substantial medical evidence, proposed exhibits were excluded, and a sub rosa video should be stricken. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration and issued a Notice of Intention to rescind the arbitrator's decision, citing issues with the completeness of the arbitration record and due process concerns.

Carve-out casesPetition for reconsiderationSubstantial medical evidenceSub rosa videoAuthenticationReport on reconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemLabor Code section 5909TimelinessNotice of transmission
References
9
Case No. TI11981166
Regular
Feb 15, 2019

JOHNNIE MANDONADO vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the previous decision to allow further proceedings. The WCAB found that the trial judge erred by excluding applicant's Exhibit No. 1 without allowing the opportunity to provide required declarations. The WCAB also found the agreed vocational expert's report could not be definitively deemed insubstantial evidence and ordered development of the record regarding its admissibility. Finally, the testimony of defense counsel as a witness at trial was stricken due to ethical concerns and lack of necessity.

Sub rosaVocational expert reportPrimary treating physicianQualified medical evaluatorNeuropsychological QMEDermatological QMEOrthopedic QMEPermanent impairmentWhole person impairmentAdmissibility of evidence
References
12
Case No. ADJ7271474
Regular
Aug 22, 2011

BRIAN DEGEN vs. BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK UPLAND

The defendant school district sought reconsideration of an order striking the Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) reports and ordering a new panel, arguing a voicemail did not constitute ex parte communication and that the WCJ erred on other grounds. The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition as it was not from a final order. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion, rescinded the WCJ's order, and ruled the QME's voicemail was insignificant and not an ex parte communication. Consequently, the QME will remain, his reports are not stricken, and the case is returned for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalRemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (PQME)Ex Parte CommunicationLabor Code Section 5310Alvarez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.VoicemailDeposition Fee
References
1
Case No. ADJ10542261, ADJ10738226
Regular
Nov 01, 2017

MARTIN DUENAS REYES vs. HIS LIFE WOODWORKS, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal concerning a Joint Findings and Order that struck a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the panel was improperly obtained because the applicant requested it less than 10 days after the claim denial, violating Labor Code section 4062.2(b). Applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the panel being stricken, and can obtain a new panel following proper procedures.

Petition for RemovalJoint Findings and OrderQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Labor Code section 4062.2(b)stricken panelcompensability disputedenial letter10-day waiting periodBahena v. Charles Virzi Constructionpremature panel request
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 37 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