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. ADJ7902535
Regular
Dec 02, 2013

MARIA SANCHEZ vs. TARGET CORPORATION

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied California Imaging Solutions' petition for reconsideration. The Board also dismissed AR Med Management's petition for reconsideration on behalf of Dr. Saghafi and Spectrum Medical Supply because it was not timely filed. Even if timely, the AR Med Management petition would have been denied on its merits. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge in both instances.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAR Med ManagementCalifornia Imaging SolutionsWCJ Reporttimely-filedmeritsSpectrum Medical SupplyDr. SaghafiTarget Corporation
References
0
Case No. ADJ987482 (MON 0338807)
Regular
May 12, 2014

INEZ LA SCOLA vs. LSG SKY CHEFS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to rescind sanctions against lien claimant Associated Reproduction Services, Inc. (ARS), finding no due process violation or basis for sanctions. However, the Board affirmed the disallowance of ARS's lien for services, as ARS failed to prove its services were reasonable and necessary for a contested claim, nor did it prove its invoices were timely presented for payment. ARS's attempt to prove its claim through exhibits and testimony did not meet its evidentiary burden.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersCompromise and ReleaseAOE/COEMedical Legal ServicesContested ClaimSubpoena RecordsSanctions
References
1
Case No. ADJ8092562 MF ADJ8222911
Regular
Feb 22, 2016

JULIA OZUNA vs. KERN COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision regarding lien claimant Associated Reproduction Services, Inc. (ARS). The Board found that ARS was acting as an agent for the applicant's attorney, making its copying services potentially compensable medical-legal expenses. Crucially, ARS is not required to prove that every copied record was specifically relied upon by the AME, only that the copying was reasonably undertaken to discover relevant information. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine a reasonable fee for ARS's services and address the claim for interest.

Associated Reproduction ServicesAMEDr. Roger Sohnlien claimantcopy service feesmedical-legal expensesLabor Code §4620(a)Labor Code §4622interestfee schedule
References
9
Case No. ADJ8201128
Regular
May 14, 2013

Barry Swartwood vs. UC DAVIS

This case concerns a lien claimant, ARS Legal, seeking payment for medical-legal copy costs incurred in the workers' compensation case of Barry Swartwood v. UC Davis. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied ARS Legal's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding. The WCAB determined that the costs were not reasonably or necessarily incurred, citing that ARS Legal obtained duplicate records after defendant Sedgwick had already objected to payment for such duplicative services. Furthermore, the records ARS Legal obtained were incomplete compared to those acquired by the defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBarry SwartwoodUC DavisSedgwickADJ8201128Order Denying ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4621(a)medical-legal copy costsStipulations with Request for Awardlien claimant
References
0
Case No. ADJ7865722
Regular
Feb 24, 2014

ILIA JAROSTCHUK vs. SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS, CHARTIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant ARS' Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding ARS failed to support its contentions with specific record references. Furthermore, the Board found that ARS, as the lien claimant, did not meet its burden to prove its charges were reasonable and necessary. The denial is consistent with legal precedent and procedural rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantARS LegalCopy ServicesReasonableness of ChargesBurden of ProofProfessional AthleteStipulations with Request for AwardFindings and Award
References
1
Case No. GOL 0098326
Regular
Jul 23, 2007

DIANE SWEET vs. SANTA MARIA JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves a lien claimant, Associated Reproduction Services (ARS), seeking reconsideration of a decision that disallowed most of its lien for photocopying services. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that ARS failed to meet its burden of proving the necessity and reasonableness of its charges. The Board affirmed that lien claimants must demonstrate that medical-legal expenses were reasonably, actually, and necessarily incurred to prove or disprove a contested claim, which ARS did not establish here.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDIANE SWEETSANTA MARIA JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTAssociated Reproduction ServicesIncARSLien claimantWCJReconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
4
Case No. ADJ8580497
Regular
Oct 24, 2014

Anthony Broussard, Chenequa Phelps, William Ortiz vs. Neighborhood House Association; Zenith Insurance Company, Grossmont Family Medical Group; Zenith Insurance Company, Steigerwald Dougherty, Inc.; Zenith Insurance Company

In three consolidated workers' compensation cases, the Appeals Board rescinded its prior consolidation order and imposed $1,000 in sanctions against lien claimant ARS Legal and its representative. The Board found that ARS Legal improperly attempted to compel claims adjusters' appearances via notice, misinterpreting Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). The Board rejected ARS Legal's arguments regarding procedural ignorance and good faith, affirming that the representative's duty included understanding proper legal procedures.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardZenith Insurance CompanyARS LegalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Quashing Notice to AppearClaims AdjusterSubpoenaWCJLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561
References
9
Case No. GOL 0097704
Regular
Nov 05, 2007

FRANCIS REALE vs. CASA DORINDA, CNA INSSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior decision, finding that the lien claimant, Associated Reproduction Services (ARS), is entitled to the stipulated remaining lien amount of $1,430.72. The Board determined that the defendant failed to sufficiently rebut the presumption of reasonableness for ARS's medical-legal copying services, despite the WCJ's reliance on a different standard. Issues of sanctions, penalty, and interest were deferred to the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderCopying servicesReasonable costUsual and customary chargeMedical legal costsLitigation expense lienPresumption of reasonableness
References
2
Case No. ADJ1085807 (BAK 0154474) ADJ6601730
Regular
Sep 15, 2015

MARIA CORTEZ vs. KIRSCHENMAN ENTERPRISES, WAUSAU UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Dr. Moelleken's petition for reconsideration, affirming the disallowance of his lien. However, they granted Associated Reproduction Services' (ARS) petition, deferring their lien claim due to an ongoing federal injunction affecting lien dismissals for unpaid activation fees. The Ninth Circuit's decision vacating the injunction was not yet final, thus the injunction remained in effect. ARS's lien will be decided on its merits pending further developments.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantsPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeActivation FeeInjunctionMandateJudicial NoticeFederal Court
References
3
Case No. ADJ9944340
Regular
Aug 02, 2018

MICHAEL NIELSEN vs. CITY OF SEBASTOPOL

This case involves a lien claimant, Associated Reproduction Services (ARS), seeking full payment for document copying services related to an injured worker's claim. ARS argues that Labor Code section 5307.9, which limits fees for services provided within 30 days of a request, does not apply because they did not subpoena records from the employer or insurer directly. The Appeals Board rescinded the previous order, finding that the fee schedule required by Section 5307.9 was not effective when the services were rendered. The matter is returned to the trial level to determine payment of the lien under Labor Code sections 4620 and 4622, considering the defendant's obligation to timely object to contested expenses.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of SebastopolMichael NielsenRedwood Empire Municipal Insurance FundLien ClaimantAssociated Reproduction ServicesInc.Labor Code Section 5307.9Fee ScheduleMedical-Legal Expenses
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 16 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