Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ4134615 (MON 0333787), ADJ443504 (MON 0333788), ADJ616026 (MON 0332010)

Regular

Mar 19, 2012

JOSE R. OCHOA vs. AMERICAN PRIVATE DUTY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration in this case. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that the WCJ properly considered Labor Code section 4906(d) when awarding a 15% attorney's fee on permanent disability indemnity. The petitioner also failed to comply with WCAB Rule 10778. Therefore, the petition was denied.

WCABPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJLabor Code section 4906(d)attorney's feepermanent disability indemnityWCAB Rule 10778adverse interestsdenying reconsideration

References

Case No. ADJ7419350

Regular

Apr 27, 2015

MARLON WHITLEY vs. BELL PLASTICS, THE HARTFORD

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's attorney fee split, rescinding the original order. The WCJ failed to adequately consider all statutory factors for a reasonable attorney fee, specifically the responsibility assumed, care exercised, and results obtained, relying too heavily on estimated hours. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings, development of the record, and a new decision. This new decision must properly consider all relevant factors mandated by Labor Code section 4906 and WCAB Rule 10775.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's Fee SplitLabor Code section 4906WCAB Rule 10775Findings and OrderSanctionHourly Attorney's FeesGood Faith NegotiationTime Expended

References

Case No. ADJ1036181 (LAO 0861182) ADJ1313689 (LAO 0861180) ADJ3257740 (LAO 0861181)

Regular

Dec 23, 2019

CONNIE EDGE, RONNIE EDGE vs. WORLD CITRUS WEST, NATIONWIDE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior decision on attorney fee allocation in a workers' compensation case. The Appeals Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, giving great weight to their credibility determinations. The Judge found no substantial evidence to overturn their prior ruling on the division of fees between two attorneys, Glauber and Hershewe. The Judge's report detailed that the fee division was based on Labor Code Section 4906(d), considering responsibility, care, time, and results obtained by each attorney, and found no ex parte communication occurred.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Credibility DeterminationsEx Parte CommunicationDue ProcessLabor Code Section 4906(d)Attorney FeesCompromise and ReleaseCumulative TraumaSpecific Injury

References

Case No. ADJ3547384; ADJ1113447

Regular

Jul 07, 2025

JOSE BERRIOS vs. JERRYS FAMOUS DELI, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CENTRE INSURANCE

The applicant's current attorney petitioned for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order that awarded the entire $90,000 attorney's fee to the applicant's prior counsel due to the current attorney's failure to file a timely disclosure statement. The Appeals Board found that the current attorney's initial disclosure statement did not comply with Labor Code § 4906(e) and that payment is precluded for services rendered before a compliant form is filed. However, the Board granted the petition for reconsideration to allow further review of the factual and legal issues, noting that the order is not a final decision on the merits and encourages mediation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 4906Disclosure StatementCompromise and ReleaseCIGACentre InsuranceWCJReconsideration Granted

References

Case No. ADJ6767592

Regular

May 28, 2013

RODOLFO CHAVEZ vs. SIMMONS MANUFACTURING CO., CHARTIS SAN DIEGO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding an administrative law judge's order dismissing a lien claimant's lien for copy services. The lien claimant had failed to pay the required activation fee at a lien conference, which under Labor Code section 4906.03(a)(4) typically results in dismissal. However, the Board found that at the time of the dismissal, there was uncertainty regarding the application of new legislation, and the claimant's attempt to recover costs via a petition for costs under a different section was understandable. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision, requiring the lien claimant to pay the activation fee if they wish to pursue the lien.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06Order Dismissing Lien ClaimPetition for CostsSection 5811SB 863Martinez v. TerrazasWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCopy services

References

Showing 1-5 of 5 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

JOSE R. OCHOA vs. AMERICAN PRIVATE DUTY, INC.

MARLON WHITLEY vs. BELL PLASTICS, THE HARTFORD

CONNIE EDGE, RONNIE EDGE vs. WORLD CITRUS WEST, NATIONWIDE INSURANCE

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Credibility DeterminationsEx Parte CommunicationDue ProcessLabor Code Section 4906(d)Attorney FeesCompromise and ReleaseCumulative TraumaSpecific Injury

JOSE BERRIOS vs. JERRYS FAMOUS DELI, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CENTRE INSURANCE

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 4906Disclosure StatementCompromise and ReleaseCIGACentre InsuranceWCJReconsideration Granted

RODOLFO CHAVEZ vs. SIMMONS MANUFACTURING CO., CHARTIS SAN DIEGO

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06Order Dismissing Lien ClaimPetition for CostsSection 5811SB 863Martinez v. TerrazasWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCopy services