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. ADJ6969460
Regular
Mar 17, 2017

MARIA TORRES ORTIZ vs. GNS INC. dba GOOD NUTRITION #2, EYAD ABUDAWAS, SERENA ABID, WALID ABID

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, as it was filed outside the jurisdictional deadline. The Board also denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof regarding temporary disability. The applicant did not demonstrate entitlement to temporary disability by a preponderance of the evidence.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessJurisdictionalPreponderance of the evidenceTemporary disabilityBurden of proofUntimely petitionWCJ reportDismissed
References
5
Case No. ADJ9932467
Regular
Oct 16, 2017

THERESA MCFARLAND vs. REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision that "Return-To-Work" supplemental payments under Labor Code section 139.48 are not "compensation" as defined by Labor Code section 3207. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to a second penalty under Labor Code section 5814 for the employer's delay in providing a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit voucher, as that delay did not cause a delay in a compensable benefit. The Board found that the applicant's penalty claim for the voucher delay was already resolved and that imposing a second penalty for a non-compensable benefit delay would be unfair and against the principle of balancing justice.

Labor Code section 139.48Return-To-Work supplemental paymentscompensation definitionLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814 penaltyLabor Code section 4658.7 voucherSupplemental Job Displacement Benefitcompromise and release agreementGage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.unreasonable delay
References
1
Case No. ADJ7849715 ADJ7851060
Regular
Feb 01, 2019

, Applicant, , AURELIO DAVILA GARCIA vs. T-Y NURSERY, FLORISTS' MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and will defer issues regarding the applicant's entitlement to an adjusted permanent disability indemnity rate and temporary total disability indemnity. The Board affirmed the Finding of Fact that the applicant sustained a 53% permanent disability award. These deferred issues, along with applicant's attorney fee, are returned to the trial level for further proceedings and decision by the administrative law judge.

ADJ7849715ADJ7851060Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderpermanent disability indemnity rateLabor Code section 4658(d)(2)temporary total disability indemnityWCJAppeals BoardBontempo v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. ADJ8503725
Regular
Jan 09, 2017

DAVID LEZCHUK (Deceased), MELISSA LEZCHUK, Guardian ad Litem for MADISON GRACE LEZCHUK, minor vs. CAL FIRE—DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION, legally uninsured, administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's untimely petition for reconsideration. The Board also denied the defendant's petition, upholding the finding that Madison Lezchuk, the minor dependent, is entitled to an additional death benefit of $53,000. This additional benefit is to be placed in a trust due to the applicant's spending habits and inability to manage funds, ensuring protection of Madison's future interests. The WCAB affirmed that the "good cause" exception under Labor Code section 4704 allows for such awards despite the applicant's receipt of a CALPERS Special Death Benefit.

CALPERSSpecial Death BenefitLabor Code section 4707Labor Code section 4704good causeminor dependentdeath benefitGuardian ad Litemindustrial injuryWCJ discretion
References
3
Case No. ADJ237189 (RIV 0058701)
Regular
May 22, 2009

DONALD K. SMITH vs. CITY OF SANTA ANA

This case concerns an applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration regarding appellate costs and attorney's fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, which had affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the heart and prostate but barred the skin cancer claim due to the statute of limitations. The Board ordered the applicant's attorney to reimburse the applicant $390 improperly solicited and received, while ordering the defendant to pay appellate costs of $382.79 upon confirmation of the reimbursement. The Board declined to increase the attorney's fee, finding it already exceeded typical ranges and that the attorney had not demonstrated entitlement to more.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemittiturStatute of LimitationsSkin CancerHeart InjuryProstate CancerPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeeAppellate Costs
References
2
Case No. ADJ10064259
Regular
Nov 19, 2015

, Applicant, CHARLES WAGNER, vs. , Defendants. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES; ACE AMERICAN INS. CO.; CORVEL ADMINSTRATOR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior order allowing the applicant to treat outside the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Board found that while MPN notice requirements are crucial, an employee can only treat outside the network at the employer's expense if a failure to provide notice resulted in a denial of medical care. In this case, the applicant received timely medical treatment, and the defendant presented evidence of providing MPN notices, thus, the applicant was not entitled to self-procured treatment outside the MPN.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider Network (MPN)ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Labor CodeRule 9767.12Medical TreatmentExpedited HearingForklift Operator
References
1
Case No. ADJ3947517
Regular
Sep 30, 2009

RUDY GONZALES vs. CELITE CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the prior ruling that his claim for retroactive vocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA) was terminated by the repeal of Labor Code section 139.5 on January 1, 2009. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition, vacating the Rehabilitation Unit's order awarding VRMA because the applicant's right to benefits had not vested in a final order before the effective date of the repeal. The Board clarified that a determination of Qualified Injured Worker status does not constitute a final award of VRMA, and jurisdiction over such claims cannot be conferred by waiver. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any further vocational rehabilitation benefits.

Labor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationVRMAQIWvested rightinchoate rightfinal orderrepealjurisdictionreconsideration
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shabazz v. State

The claimant's application, specifically a "Notice of Appeal to Perfect," was denied. Cross-motions to dismiss this application were granted without costs. The court cited a lack of subject matter jurisdiction regarding the claimant’s request for money damages as one ground for dismissal. Additionally, it was noted that the claimant did not appear to have filed a timely appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Board decisions. This decision was made with reference to Workers’ Compensation Law § 23.

JurisdictionMoney DamagesTimelinessAppealWorkers' CompensationDismissalNotice of Appeal
References
0
Case No. OAK 0335075
Regular
Jan 14, 2008

DAVID ALBINI vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition and granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB rescinded the original award finding the applicant entitled to up to 104 weeks of temporary disability (TD) beyond two years of the first payment. The WCAB clarified that TD benefits are limited to 104 compensable weeks within two years from the *actual date* of the first TD payment, not when it was first owed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Total Disability (TTD)Temporary Disability Indemnity (TDI)Labor Code Section 4656aggregate disability paymentscompensable weeksdate of commencement of temporary disability paymentSB 899WCJ
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 13,976 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