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. ADJ6762403
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

THEODORE PERLL vs. CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, ULICO CASUALTY COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, upholding the WCJ's order to continue the case to trial. The applicant sought to rescind the trial date, arguing that an MRI of his knee, ordered by his treating physician, might reveal the need for further surgery and that proceeding to trial would prevent him from presenting current medical information. The Board found that by the trial date, the applicant would have the MRI results and any resulting surgical recommendations, allowing the trial judge to assess whether to proceed. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, making reconsideration an adequate remedy.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceTemporary Disability BenefitsPermanent and StationaryFurther SurgeryIndustrial InjuryWCJ
References
0
Case No. SJO 0251585
Regular
Dec 14, 2007

JENNY PHAM vs. SANMINA-SCI CORPORATION, SENTRY CLAIMS SERVICE

The defendant, Sanmina-Sci Corporation, petitioned for removal, seeking to vacate a trial date due to their counsel's alleged lack of notice for a mandatory settlement conference. However, the trial has already proceeded on the scheduled date. Because the matter has gone to trial, the petition for removal is moot. Any grievances the defendant has with the trial judge's rulings can be addressed through a petition for reconsideration.

Petition for removalMandatory settlement conferencePrejudiceIrreparably harmedMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceLien claimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCAB Rule 10843Moot
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Marcus

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal challenging a trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets following a divorce between a plaintiff wife and defendant husband, Harold Marcus. The couple's long marriage began in 1948, with the wife contributing to household expenses while the husband completed medical school and later built a successful psychiatric practice and investments. Key disputes included the cut-off date for classifying marital property, the valuation date for assets (with the trial court using the Feb 1985 trial date), and the valuation of the husband's retirement plan trust and professional corporation. The court modified the plaintiff's award from the retirement plan and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new hearing to determine the value and equitable distribution of the husband's medical license and psychiatric practice.

Equitable distributionMarital assetsDivorce actionProfessional license valuationRetirement planProperty classificationValuation dateSpousal contributionsMarital residenceInvestment account
References
18
Case No. ADJ7348039
Regular
Apr 16, 2013

VIRGINIA DE LA ROSA vs. WARNER BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant filed a Petition for Removal seeking to rescind a notice requiring a claims examiner to appear at trial with a complete file. However, the trial date of March 5, 2013, has passed, and the trial was continued to April 8, 2013, with the outcome of that proceeding unknown. Therefore, the Appeals Board found the petition moot as it pertains to the now-past trial date. Consequently, the Petition for Removal was dismissed.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardRescind Notice to AppealClaims ExaminerMariam LevarioTrial DateMootDismissedVan Nuys District OfficeWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ552778 (LBO 0362055)
Regular
May 10, 2015

PROYLAND CAMARILLO HURTADO vs. APL LOGISTICS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, which sought to continue the trial date. The applicant wished to undergo further surgery and reevaluations to assess his final disability after an industrial injury to his back and knee. The Board found that these issues could be addressed by the trial judge on the scheduled trial date, who has the discretion to continue the matter if further discovery is deemed necessary. Therefore, the applicant's request to remove the case from the trial calendar was denied.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorWCJoff calendarrevaluationsfinal disabilityindustrial injuryforklift operatordriver
References
0
Case No. ADJ7817182
Regular
Dec 24, 2012

PEGGY ALEXANDER vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal and rescinded an order setting a trial date. This action was taken because the defendant employer argued they were prejudiced by being forced to trial without QME medical evidence they had diligently sought. The WCAB found that both parties failed to notify the Board that the QME panels had issued after a trial date was set but before removal was granted. Consequently, the matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, and no sanctions were imposed.

WCABRemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMandatory Settlement ConferenceQualified Medical ExaminerQME PanelDiscovery ClosureOrder Setting for TrialRescindReturn to Trial Level
References
0
Case No. ADJ8061042
Regular
Feb 27, 2013

GREGORY GROVER vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the County of Sacramento challenging a WCJ's order continuing a trial date. The defendant argued that discovery remained incomplete and questioned the substantiality of a QME's report. However, the parties subsequently agreed to continue the trial to a new date. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal as moot because the issues raised were rendered irrelevant by the new trial scheduling. The Board clarified that any discovery or evidentiary disputes should be addressed at the trial level.

Petition for RemovalWCJQMEorthopedic surgerysubstantial medical evidencemootdiscoveryDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedcontinuanceAppeals Board
References
1
Case No. ADJ1347643
Regular
Apr 15, 2009

EVA RODRIGUEZ vs. AMERIKLEEN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address inconsistencies in the trial judge's findings regarding lien claimant Cordova Chiropractic's treatment dates. The Board found the record unclear as to which specific treatment dates were disallowed and whether Dr. Park's QME report was properly considered. Specifically, the Board noted that Dr. Park's report appeared to approve past medical care, including May 2008 treatments rejected by the trial judge, and that the trial judge's reasoning for disallowing treatment lacked clear justification. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to clarify the record and ensure proper application of relevant medical guidelines.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and AwardPresiding Workers' Compensation JudgeReasonable and Necessary TreatmentQualified Medical EvaluatorACOEM GuidelinesLabor Code Section 4600Senate Bill 899
References
5
Case No. ADJ8162003
Regular
Dec 17, 2014

MARIA GUIZAR vs. CROWN PLAZA HOTEL, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, ULLICO CASUALTY COMPANY, PATRIOT RISK SERVICES

Defendant sought removal, arguing a trial date was set prematurely before a mandatory settlement conference. The Board reviewed the case and found the petition moot because the parties appeared for trial on the scheduled date and jointly requested the case be taken off calendar. The trial judge also effectively nullified the prior order the defendant objected to. Therefore, the Petition for Removal was dismissed as the issues raised were resolved.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceOrder Vacating JoinderWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMootStatus ConferenceTrial DateDiscoveryStipulations
References
0
Case No. ADJ4242717 (VNO 0420852) ADJ7278860
Regular
Sep 28, 2016

PHILLIP WILLIAMS vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION - CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR WOMEN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal, rescinding a WCJ's order compelling former attorney John Ferrone to attend trial as a witness. The Board found that the only subpoena issued for Ferrone was to attend a trial date that had long passed, was not personally served, and had potentially been withdrawn. Compelling a witness's attendance requires a valid subpoena, and no such valid subpoena existed for the current trial date.

Petition for RemovalAttorney-Client PrivilegeSubpoenaWCJ OrderFraud or MistakeStipulation and OrderMotion to QuashAttorney as WitnessCompelled AttendancePercipient Witness
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 7,001 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