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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yeshiva University v. New England Educational Institute, Inc.

In a Lanham Act action, defendants, who prevailed after a jury trial against plaintiff Yeshiva, sought approximately $50,000 in attorney's fees. The application presented a novel question: whether a prevailing defendant is entitled to fees when the plaintiff's liability claims were asserted in good faith but the damage claims were grossly exaggerated. The court first affirmed the applicability of the Lanham Act's attorney fee provision, § 35(a), to actions involving unregistered marks, citing precedent. Despite acknowledging the plaintiff's highly exaggerated damage claims, the court determined that the case, which was close on the merits regarding the initial copying allegations, did not meet the 'exceptional cases' standard required for awarding attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant. Consequently, the defendants' application for attorney's fees was denied.

Lanham ActAttorney's FeesPrevailing DefendantExceptional CasesUnregistered MarkDamage ClaimsExaggerated DamagesGood Faith LitigationJury VerdictNon-profit Dispute
References
7
Case No. ADJ6960749
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

AMALIA AGUILAR vs. PETALUMA VALLEY HOSPITAL, ST, JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM, THE HARTFORD, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a dispute over venue. The defendant timely objected to the applicant's initial filing venue, which was the attorney's principal place of business. The law mandates that if venue is based on the attorney's location and an objection is raised, venue must then be established in the county of the employee's residence or the injury site. Since the applicant resides in and was injured in Sonoma County, the Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal. The Board rescinded a prior order that had set aside a change of venue and formally transferred the case to the Santa Rosa district office.

EAMSPetition for RemovalOrder Setting Aside Order of Change of VenueWCJPWCJDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedObjection to VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5WCAB Rule 10410Timeliness of Objection
References
4
Case No. ADJ8962530
Regular
Oct 05, 2015

Angelina Campos vs. INTEGRATED HEALTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who initially filed in Santa Barbara but was rerouted to Oxnard and then San Luis Obispo. The applicant, now represented, sought to transfer venue back to Santa Barbara, arguing it was the proper location due to her residence, attorney's office, and original filing intent. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's denial, and ordered the venue transferred to Santa Barbara, finding it a valid district office with full services. The decision emphasizes that venue is mandatory in the county of residence or attorney's principal place of business if a district office exists there.

WCABPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5Pro PerSan Luis Obispo District OfficeSanta Barbara District OfficeOxnard District OfficeApplication for Adjudication of ClaimCumulative Injury
References
6
Case No. ADJ8171056
Regular

JUAN ARANA vs. JOHN FREE, dba BELLA CASA

This case concerns a dispute over the proper venue for a workers' compensation claim. The applicant initially chose Oakland as the venue, as it was his attorney's principal place of business. After the employer objected, the judge changed venue to Santa Rosa. The applicant appealed, arguing Oakland is closer to his residence. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the venue change, and returned the case to the trial level to determine the correct venue based on proximity to the applicant's residence or injury location.

Petition for RemovalOrder Changing VenueLabor Code section 5501.5venue objectionapplicant's residenceinjury locationnearest appeals board officeWCJDecision After Removalrescind
References
0
Case No. ADJ8017582
Regular
Aug 02, 2012

RONALD BRENT ALEXANDER vs. NEW YORK GIANTS, BERKLEY SPECIALTY; PITTSBURG STEELERS; ARIZONA CARDINALS; CAROLINA PANTHERS

This case involves a dispute over venue for a workers' compensation claim filed by a former professional football player. The applicant initially selected the Santa Ana district office based on his attorney's principal place of business. However, the defendant insurance carrier timely objected to this venue, arguing that pursuant to Labor Code section 5501.5(c), venue must be in the county of the applicant's residence or last injurious exposure if an objection is raised. As the applicant does not reside in California, the Board granted the petition for removal and remanded the case to determine the county of last exposure to establish proper venue.

Petition for RemovalVenue TransferLabor Code Section 5501.5Principal Place of BusinessObjection to VenueLast Injurious ExposureWCAB Rule 10410Applicant's ResidenceIndustrial InjuryProfessional Football Player
References
0
Case No. ADJ174481 (SAL 0095964)
Regular
Nov 19, 2008

LAURA WILLIAMS-WELTY vs. TILE WEST, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding the 27% permanent disability finding, upholding the WCJ's reliance on the Agreed Medical Evaluator's report. However, the Board granted the applicant's attorney's petition to correct a clerical error regarding his fee. The WCJ's award of $2,750 was amended to reflect a 15% attorney's fee, acknowledging the attorney's extensive work and successful outcomes for the applicant over several years.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial EvidenceAttorney's FeePetition to Correct Clerical Error
References
2
Case No. ADJ9908969
Regular
Aug 28, 2015

MICHAEL MCGRATH vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, HAZELRIGG CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

This case involves a dispute over venue for a workers' compensation claim. The employer, Oakland Unified School District, sought to transfer the case from Oxnard to Oakland, arguing the applicant resides and was injured in Oakland's jurisdiction, despite the application initially being filed in Oxnard based on the applicant's attorney's principal place of business. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal, rescinding the judge's denial of the venue change. The WCAB found the judge applied the wrong legal standard and that the employer's objection to venue, made pursuant to Labor Code section 5501.5(c), mandated a transfer to Oakland.

Petition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenueWCJsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationWCAB District OfficeOakland WCAB District OfficeOxnard WCAB District Officevenue transfer
References
4
Case No. ADJ4280040 (VNO 0557524)
Regular
Jun 09, 2010

CARLOS GUZMAN vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a supplemental attorney's fee award for applicant's counsel. The Court of Appeal denied the defendant's petition for writ of review and remanded for attorney's fees and costs. While the applicant's attorney requested $2100 based on six hours at $350/hour, the Board awarded $1500 based on six hours at $250/hour, considering the attorney's recent admission to the bar and lack of specialization. Costs were not awarded as they were not requested.

Supplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code §5801Petition for Writ of ReviewReasonable Attorney's FeesHourly RateState Bar AdmissionCertified SpecialistWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardBarrett Business ServicesInc.
References
1
Case No. ADJ2531693 (MON 0284829)
Regular
Feb 22, 2012

VIRGINIA SIEGEL vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES - EXTENSION DEPARTMENT BUSINESS, OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

This case involves the award of additional attorney's fees to applicant's counsel following a successful defense of a Petition for Writ of Review at the appellate level. The Court of Appeal had previously remanded the matter to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for the purpose of making this supplemental award. Applicant's attorney requested $2,400.00 for six hours of work at $400.00 per hour, plus $179.07 in costs. The WCAB found this amount reasonable given the attorney's extensive experience and the successful outcome. An award of $2,579.07 in appellate attorney's fees and costs was made against the defendant.

Labor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealSupplemental Attorney's FeeAppellate Attorney's FeeRemandWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReasonable Attorney FeesLegal ServicesPetition for Award of Attorney's Fee
References
3
Case No. ADJ5690219
Regular
Jul 31, 2015

TOM PALLADINO vs. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award and issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions on applicant's attorney. This action stems from alleged false, misleading, and unsubstantiated allegations made by the attorney in the applicant's Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found no evidence to support the claims of intentional delay by the defendant and determined the attorney's statements to be without merit and potentially prejudicial. The attorney and his firm face a $750 sanction unless good cause is shown why it should not be imposed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityApportionmentSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Attorney Misconduct
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15,810 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