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. ADJ7282444
Regular
Aug 19, 2015

ROSA RANGEL vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, IN HOME SUPPORT SERVICES

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding the judge's decision to set the case for trial. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The WCJ properly deferred the issue of medical record development to the trial judge.

Removal PetitionExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsideration Adequate RemedyWCJ ReportAgreed Medical EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorDevelop the RecordMandatory Settlement Conference
References
Case No. ADJ6579284
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

Paul Smith III vs. Denver Broncos Football, Great Divide Insurance Company

The Denver Broncos Football filed a petition for removal contesting a joinder order issued by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the applicant's answer, and the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. The Board denied the petition for removal, emphasizing that removal is an extraordinary remedy. It concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would not be an inadequate remedy if an adverse final decision were to be issued.

Petition for RemovalOrder of JoinderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmitted EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceHolmberg
References
Case No. ADJ9616404
Regular
Dec 24, 2015

Antonio Banuelos vs. Houweling Nurseries, Intercare Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal because it failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's arguments that the panel QME's report was not substantial evidence and that they needed more time for discovery were insufficient grounds for removal. The Board found that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is eventually issued. Additionally, the petition was noted as being procedurally deficient.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationQMEdepositionsubstantial evidenceskeletal petitionWCJ report
References
Case No. ADJ6937895
Regular
Jan 29, 2014

OSVALDO CALLEROS vs. EL CHOLO CAFÉ, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order dismissing a lien claimant's lien. Although the lien claimant missed a conference and filed an objection late, the Board found that the treatment was authorized by the defendant and that returning the matter to the trial level would achieve substantial justice. The Board emphasized the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, and that returning the case would allow for fair and equitable resolution without substantial prejudice to the defendant.

Lien ClaimantReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienEquitableUnjust EnrichmentAuthorized TreatmentLien ConferenceNotice of Intention to DismissObjectionSubstantial Justice
References
Case No. ADJ3501807 (SRO 0141934)
Regular
Sep 08, 2011

JESSICA REYNOLDS vs. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal seeking to replace a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The defendant argued the QME violated Administrative Director Rule 34(b) by scheduling an exam at an unlisted address. However, the Board found the defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm necessary for removal. The Board agreed with the WCJ's finding that the objection appeared to be an attempt at "doctor shopping" and gamesmanship, contrary to the policy of substantial justice.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorReplacement Panel QMELabor Code section 4062.2Administrative Director Rule 34(b)substantial prejudiceirreparable harmdoctor shoppinggamesmanshipsocial public policy
References
Case No. ADJ10183569
Regular
Dec 26, 2017

LEAMON PERKINS vs. DON L, KNOX, DLK CAPITAL INC., AMERICAN MODERN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision dismisses a petition for reconsideration and denies a petition for removal. The Board found the WCJ's order denying a petition to vacate without prejudice was not a "final" order, thus precluding reconsideration. Furthermore, the Board denied removal, as the insurer failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from an order that preserves their right to address coverage issues at trial. The insurer can raise coverage disputes at the subsequent trial because the WCJ's prior order was not final.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueWithout PrejudiceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmExtraordinary Remedy
References
Case No. ADJ11039762
Regular
Aug 06, 2018

ALFRED GUILING vs. GODEFELLOW BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and dismissed their Petition for Removal. The defendant argued the judge's finding of injury to specific body parts was premature and lacked substantial evidence, as the PQME process was incomplete. The Board found removal was inappropriate, as the injury finding is a final order subject to reconsideration. They adopted the WCJ's report, concluding the applicant met their burden of proof for industrial injury to the disputed body parts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings of Factindustrial injurybody partssubstantial evidencePanel Qualified Medical EvaluationPQMEextraordinary remedy
References
Case No. ADJ19059640
Regular
Sep 24, 2025

DANIEL ANDRADE vs. MARPLES AND ASSOCIATES REALTOR, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal from an order setting a workers' compensation matter for trial. The applicant claimed discovery was incomplete, but the Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm warranting removal, as reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board stated that trial would provide an opportunity to create a complete record and address discovery issues. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmitted EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceDiscoveryTrialAppeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ16179467
Regular
Sep 24, 2025

WILTON PEREZ vs. STRIZZI'S RESTAURANT, INC.; REPUBLIC INDEMNITY COMPANY

The defendant petitioned for removal of an order setting the matter for trial, arguing that discovery was incomplete. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's recommendation. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, or inadequacy of reconsideration as a remedy. The Board found no such showing and noted that parties would have an opportunity to develop the record at trial.

Petition for RemovalWCJDiscoverySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmitted EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceComplete RecordTrial
References
Case No. ADJ18504272
Regular
Sep 19, 2025

MIRELLA VELIZ vs. PACIFIC AVIATION CORPORATION, STARR INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY, administered by SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Mirella Veliz's petition for removal from an order setting the matter for trial. Veliz argued that discovery was incomplete and the defendant's readiness for trial declaration was defective. The WCAB found that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated here. The Board noted that parties can address discovery issues and present all evidence and arguments at trial.

Petition for RemovalWCJ OrderDiscovery CompletionDeclaration of ReadinessSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdmitted EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceComplete Record
References
Showing 1-10 of 5,212 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