Updated Daily

Case Law Database

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

Case No. ADJ4387448

Regular

Apr 14, 2010

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORP.; MATRIX SAN JOSE

In this workers' compensation case, the Applicant sought reconsideration of an Administrative Law Judge's order denying a penalty claim. The Applicant argued that a prior stipulation implicitly reserved the issue of penalties. The Appeals Board, construing the Applicant's petition as one for reconsideration despite its initial denomination as "removal," granted the petition. This allows for further review of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision.

Petition for RemovalStipulationLabor Code section 5814(c)penalty petitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and Orderreconsiderationsection 5900(a)section 5903section 5902

References

Case No. ADJ4387448 (SJO 0267422)

Regular

Mar 11, 2014

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

The Court of Appeal ordered a supplemental attorney's fee award for applicant's counsel for successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Board reviewed the attorney's claimed hours and rate, deeming some time entries excessive and clerical tasks non-compensable. Ultimately, the Board awarded $5,480.00 in attorney's fees plus $47.74 in costs, totaling $5,527.74, and clarified this award is in addition to any compensation owed. The Board also rejected the defendant's argument that the third-party credit applied to this supplemental fee award.

Labor Code § 5801Supplemental Attorney's FeePetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of Appeal RemandApplicant's AttorneyReasonable Attorney FeesHourly RateTime and EffortCase ComplexityClerical Tasks

References

Case No. ADJ4387448 (SJO 0267422)

Regular

Aug 03, 2010

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORP., MATRIX SAN JOSE

This case concerns applicant Balgovind Sharma's claim for workers' compensation penalties against Lam Research Corp. and Matrix San Jose for alleged unreasonable delay in authorizing medical treatment. Following a stipulation on August 4, 2009, which agreed to authorize specific treatments, applicant sought penalties for sixteen prior, unaddressed treatment requests. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding that applicant did not "expressly exclude" penalty claims from the stipulation as required by Labor Code section 5814(c). Consequently, all accrued penalty claims, including those not specifically mentioned in the stipulation, were conclusively presumed resolved by the stipulation.

ADJ4387448Lam Research Corp.Matrix San JoseBalgovind SharmaReconsiderationStipulationMedical treatment authorizationPetition for PenaltyUnreasonable DelaySection 5814(c)

References

Showing 1-3 of 3 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORP.; MATRIX SAN JOSE

Petition for RemovalStipulationLabor Code section 5814(c)penalty petitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and Orderreconsiderationsection 5900(a)section 5903section 5902

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

Labor Code § 5801Supplemental Attorney's FeePetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of Appeal RemandApplicant's AttorneyReasonable Attorney FeesHourly RateTime and EffortCase ComplexityClerical Tasks

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORP., MATRIX SAN JOSE

ADJ4387448Lam Research Corp.Matrix San JoseBalgovind SharmaReconsiderationStipulationMedical treatment authorizationPetition for PenaltyUnreasonable DelaySection 5814(c)