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. ADJ8026817
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

MARIA OCHOA vs. RANGERS DIE CASTING COMPANY, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant sustained injury to her respiratory system and psyche AOE/COE. The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr. Lipper and Dr. Curtis lacked substantiality. Specifically, the physicians failed to provide clear diagnoses, quantify exposures, or adequately explain causation. The Board noted contradictory testimony from the applicant's supervisor and insufficient evidence to support the initial findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMaria OchoaRangers Die Casting CompanyCOMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANYADJ8026817Los Angeles District OfficeOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ3792740 (OAK 0325116)
Regular
Dec 12, 2008

BONNIE REDDRICK vs. TENET/DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant's attorney. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the determination of these costs following the denial of the defendant's petition for review. The Appeals Board awarded $152.21 in costs, representing verifiable delivery expenses, as in-house copying, mailing, and labor costs are considered overhead and not recoverable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Johnson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Supreme Court of CaliforniaItemized CostsDelivery CostsMailing CostsCopying Costs
References
Case No. FRE 0191303
Regular
Nov 27, 2007

NORMA OZUNA vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a finding that the defendant was not responsible for the costs of the applicant's vocational expert. The WCAB remanded the case to the trial level for further analysis, instructing the judge to consider the factors outlined in *Costa v. Hardy Diagnostic* regarding the reasonableness and necessity of expert costs. The decision does not comment on the merits of whether the costs are ultimately reimbursable.

Vocational expert costsLabor Code section 5811Costa v. Hardy DiagnosticPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleAppeals Board en banccumulative traumaHepatitis Ccorrectional officeragreed medical evaluatorfindings of fact and award
References
Case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Regular
Jan 07, 2011

JOYCE GUZMAN vs. MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant, Joyce Guzman. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Appeals Board's decision and the Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for review. Following this, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur awarding costs to the applicant under Labor Code section 5811. The applicant requested $2,686.60 in appellate costs, which the Appeals Board found reasonable and awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMilpitas Unified School DistrictKeenan & AssociatesAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Court of AppealRemittiturPetition for ReviewItemized RequestReasonable Costs
References
Case No. ADJ7106256; ADJ7215653 ADJ7215975
Regular
Dec 08, 2011

DEBORAH BARRETT vs. DELTA DENTAL, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding an order compelling attendance at a deposition and awarding costs. While the deposition itself is now moot, the Board found that the applicant was not given proper notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the award of costs. Therefore, the matter is returned to the trial level for the judge to reconsider the costs after providing the applicant due process.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder Compelling Attendance at DepositionAwarding CostsWCJapplicantdefendantsmootsanctionsLabor Code section 5813
References
Case No. ADJ7646278
Regular
May 25, 2012

KIRK ALVARADO vs. ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

Former applicant's counsel sought reconsideration of an arbitrator's order requiring them to pay $525.00 to reimburse the defendant for a failed deposition. The arbitrator based the order on a "fair balance" rather than bad faith, believing the defense was ready to proceed. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the cost order. The Board found that miscommunication between the applicant and his attorney, not counsel's fault, caused the deposition's failure.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationFailed DepositionReimbursement of CostsLabor Code Section 5811MiscommunicationApplicant's CounselDefense CounselAward of Costs
References
Case No. ADJ9687683
Regular
Jun 18, 2015

CRIS ARANDA vs. MORTIMER & WALLACE, INC., UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST, ICW GROUP INSURANCE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration, rescinding the prior order that required reimbursement for applicant's deposition costs. The Board found that the employer was denied due process as they received no notice or opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings, allowing the employer to present arguments regarding alleged fraudulent statements made by the applicant during the deposition. This is permissible when the alleged deceit directly concerns the claim of injury itself.

Labor Code §5710Petition for ReconsiderationDue ProcessFair HearingDeposition CostsReimbursement of CostsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ Order RescindedFraudulent StatementsOpportunity to be Heard
References
Case No. ADJ7485185, ADJ9885267
Regular
Sep 18, 2017

LAURA ORTIZ vs. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, MID CENTURY INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision denies a petition for reconsideration, affirming the applicant's timely invocation of jurisdiction to seek additional benefits. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant's filings of an Application for Adjudication of Claim and an Amended Application, along with documented medical evidence of worsening condition, satisfied the requirements for reopening and seeking further compensation. These actions put the defendants on notice of the applicant's intent to pursue increased benefits, even without a formal petition to reopen.

Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5410Application for Adjudication of ClaimRiel v. State of CaliforniaBeaida v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.stipulated awardpro perfuture medical treatmentincreased symptomsworsening condition
References
Case No. ADJ7613459
Significant
May 07, 2013

Luis Martinez, Applicant vs. Ana Terrazas, Allstate Insurance Co., administered by Specialty Risk Services

The Appeals Board holds that medical-legal expenses cannot be filed as a petition for costs under Labor Code section 5811 to avoid lien activation fees, but allows for the reinstatement of liens that were withdrawn for this purpose prior to the decision if they have not been formally dismissed.

SB 863lien activation feemedical-legal expensespetition for costsLabor Code section 5811Labor Code section 4903.06en banc decisionreinstatement principlelitigation costsstatutory schemes
References
Showing 1-10 of 10,952 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