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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
Case No. ADJ6916816
Regular
Feb 05, 2013

SARAH HOAGLAND vs. COUNTY OF YUBA

This case concerns a workers' compensation applicant, Sarah Hoagland, who was ordered to produce business records and tax returns. The Appeals Board granted her Petition for Removal, ruling that her tax returns are privileged and cannot be compelled. However, Hoagland must produce her business records, though she may seek protective orders for third-party privacy concerns or request in-camera review. Charity records were deemed outside the subpoena's scope and require a more specific demand.

Petition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumTax Records PrivilegeRevenue and Taxation Code Section 19282Webb v. Standard Oil Co.Schnabel v. Superior CourtPublic Policy ExceptionConfidential Financial InformationThird-Party Privacy RightsProtective Order
References
Case No. ADJ10939613, ADJ11371215
Regular
Jan 22, 2019

BRIAN COLLINS vs. CITY OF VACAVILLE, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding an order that quashed subpoenas for an applicant's former employer personnel and medical records. The Board found that Evidence Code sections 1043-1046, which govern discovery of police personnel records, are not applicable to routine workers' compensation discovery. Filing a workers' compensation claim places the applicant's medical condition at issue, making these records essential for the defense. Therefore, requiring strict adherence to the *Pitchess* procedure would be an absurd procedural hurdle in this context.

Workers' CompensationPetition for RemovalQuashed SubpoenasPolice Officer Personnel RecordsEvidence Code Sections 1043-1046Penal Code Sections 832.7-832.8Pitchess MotionRoutine DiscoveryMedical RecordsPersonnel Records
References
Case No. ADJ8071753
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

RAFAEL CASTRO vs. VALLEY CREST COMPANIES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, quashing the applicant's subpoena duces tecum. The Board found the subpoena's request for "any and all logs" to be vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. Consequently, the employer cannot be compelled to produce documents under such an unclear demand. The applicant must issue a more specific subpoena if he wishes to obtain particular documents.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Quash SubpoenaSubpoena Duces TecumWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLandskaperIndustrial InjuryVague SubpoenaAmbiguous SubpoenaIntelligent Response
References
Case No. ADJ11160722, ADJ11383679, ADJ11398700
Regular
Feb 27, 2020

GREG EISERT vs. CITY OF VACAVILLE, INNOVATIVE CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding an order that quashed subpoenas for an applicant police officer's personnel records. The Board ruled that Evidence Code sections 1043-1046 do not apply to routine discovery of medical and injury-related records in workers' compensation cases when an applicant puts their health at issue. However, the request for "POST" documents was returned to the trial level for further determination as their nature and relevance to routine discovery were unclear. The Board aims for substantial justice, emphasizing that procedural technicalities should not impede necessary discovery in such claims.

Petition for RemovalEvidence Code 1043Penal Code 832.7Personnel RecordsPeace OfficerRoutine DiscoveryMedical RecordsInjury-Related RecordsPOST DocumentsSubpoena Duces Tecum
References
Case No. ADJ9972033
Regular
Aug 18, 2015

BRIAN DEL ROSARIO vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., LIBERY INSURANCE

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's mootness order, and remanded the case for a decision on the merits of the employer's motion to quash. The employer argued that a subpoena duces tecum for ten years of employment records was overly broad and burdensome, and reconsideration later would not be adequate. The Board found the employer demonstrated substantial prejudice and irreparable harm due to the breadth of the request and a drafting error in the original motion. A dissenting opinion argued removal was inappropriate as the employer's error, not the WCJ's, created the issue, and the employer had an adequate remedy by refiling.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashMootnessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJAdministrative Law JudgeDiscovery Dispute
References
Case No. ADJ11046200
Regular
Oct 29, 2018

SHAWN JENEI vs. CASA LOMA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Med-Legal Photocopy, seeking payment for copying services related to an applicant's workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The primary issue was whether the lien claimant's services were compensable under Labor Code section 5307.9, which mandates a 30-day waiting period after an employer/insurer request for records before payment for copying services is allowed. The Board found that the applicant's attorney did not wait the requisite 30 days before issuing subpoenas for the records, thus disallowing the lien.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDMed-Legal PhotocopyPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJLabor Code § 5307.9subpoenasmedical recordscustodian of recordsclaims administrator
References
Case No. ADJ10745219
Regular
Jun 07, 2017

SUSHILA CHAND vs. MACY'S, MACY'S COPRORATE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Macy's petition for removal of an order denying their motion to quash a subpoena. Macy's argued the subpoena was improper because the applicant failed to request records directly from them first, violating a specific rule. The Board found Macy's claim of irreparable harm unconvincing, explaining the cited rule pertains to payment for copying services, not the validity of the subpoena itself. The proper recourse for Macy's alleged violation is to object to copying bills, not to quash the subpoena.

Removal petitionQuash subpoena duces tecumAdministrative Director Rule 9982WCAB Rule 10848Injured workerEmployer recordsMedical recordsCopying servicesIrreparable harmWCJ report and recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ9268174
Regular
Jan 07, 2015

CHARLES BURNS vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of San Bernardino's petition for removal regarding a judge's order on subpoenas. The County sought to quash all subpoenas for records related to an inmate's claimed industrial injury, arguing the inmate was not an employee. The Board found the County failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order, even if the initial petition to quash was untimely. If the inmate is not an employee, the County will not be liable for costs related to the records or medical-legal expenses.

Subpoena Duces TecumPetition for RemovalOrder Quashing SubpoenaPenal Code Section 4017Labor Code Section 3370Inmate EmploymentRisk ManagementSan Bernardino Sheriff's DepartmentArrowhead Regional Medical CenterSubstantial Prejudice
References
Case No. ADJ9165288
Regular
Dec 02, 2014

WILBERT SPRY vs. SAFEWAY/SAFEWAY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Safeway's petition for removal, which sought to quash a second subpoena for medical records. The Board found that Safeway failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or substantial prejudice, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board also noted that workers' compensation proceedings are governed by the Labor Code, not the Code of Civil Procedure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMotion to QuashSubpoena Duces TecumDuplicative RecordsOn Time RecordsWatson Wellness CenterWCJCal. Code Civ. Proc.2020.220
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,434 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