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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ10065068
Regular
May 02, 2018

JOHN LAMBERT vs. COUNTY OF KERN

This case concerns a supplemental award of attorney's fees to the applicant's attorney. Following the denial of the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review by the Court of Appeal, the matter was remanded for this specific purpose. The applicant's attorney submitted a petition requesting \$9,765.00 for 27.9 hours of work at \$350 per hour in opposing the writ. Without objection from the defendant and after considering the reasonableness of the requested fees, the Appeals Board awarded the full \$9,765.00 in appellate attorney's fees.

Labor Code § 5801additional attorney's feessupplemental awardPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of Appealappellate attorney's feestime loghourly ratecase-by-case basismerits of appellate work
References
Case No. ADJ4094302 (AHM 0101287)
Regular
Jun 08, 2010

ROBERT STAMPS vs. KENNY-SHEA-TRAYLOR-FRONTIER-KEMPER JOINT VENTURE; AIG SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a supplemental attorney's fee award for the applicant's attorney, John M. Urban, under Labor Code §5801. The Court of Appeal denied the defendant's petition for writ of review, finding no reasonable basis and remanding for attorney's fees. Applicant's attorney requested $5400.00 for 18 hours of work at $300 per hour, which the Board found reasonable. The Board awarded the requested amount to John M. Urban against the defendant joint venture.

ADJ4094302SUPPLEMENTAL ATTORNEY'S FEESLABOR CODE §5801Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate Districtpetition for writ of reviewno reasonable basisremandattorney's feesapplicant's attorneyJohn M. Urban
References
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
Case No. ADJ9508272
Regular
Oct 11, 2017

FERESHTEH ALAEI-NIA vs. MACY'S INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an award of additional attorney's fees and costs to applicant's counsel. The Second District Court of Appeal had previously remanded the case for such an award after denying the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. The Board reviewed the itemized request, considering factors like time, effort, skill, complexity, and the frivolous nature of the defendant's petition. Ultimately, the Board awarded $8,955.00 in attorney's fees and $120.14 in costs, totaling $9,075.14.

Writ of ReviewSupplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Appellate Attorney's FeesCase-by-case basisFrivolous PetitionIndustrial Psychiatric InjuryVenue ChallengeReasonable Hourly RateItemization of Attorney's Fees
References
Case No. SFO 0471491
Regular
May 17, 2008

Leonard Desmuke vs. Marine Terminals Corp., Majestic Insurance Company

The Appeals Board granted removal, reversing the WCJ's denial of attorney Grimes' petition to be relieved as counsel. The Board found that Grimes had established sufficient cause due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship, stemming from the applicant's withdrawal from a settlement and ongoing disputes, despite the applicant's objections. The Board emphasized that the applicant's alleged unwarranted claim or discovery issues could not be substantiated without violating ethical duties of confidentiality.

Petition for RemovalPetition to Be Relieved as CounselAttorney-Client Relationship BreakdownUnwarranted ClaimEthical Duty of ConfidentialityAttorney of RecordWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeMandatory Settlement ConferenceIn Camera Hearing
References
Case No. ADJ7892653
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

PETER ALVAREZ vs. CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the order that joined the Office of the Attorney General as a party. The Board found the Attorney General was not a necessary party as the applicant clearly identified the California National Guard as their employer. Furthermore, the Board raised a jurisdictional issue, as National Guard service under Title 32, which may apply here, generally precludes state workers' compensation benefits. The case is returned to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction.

Petition for RemovalOrder Joining Party DefendantCalifornia National GuardState Active DutyTitle 32Title 10Inactive Duty TrainingMilitary and Veterans CodeNachbaurJurisdiction
References
Case No. ADJ10600929
Regular
Dec 02, 2020

LUSINO ABARCA vs. AMERICAN APPAREL USA, LLC, ARCH INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, CORVEL CORPORATION, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Court of Appeal remanded this case to the Appeals Board for an award of additional attorney's fees for services rendered opposing a petition for writ of review. Applicant's attorney requested $7,600.00 for 19 hours of work at $400.00 per hour, providing a detailed accounting of services. The Appeals Board found this request reasonable based on the attorney's skill, the good result obtained, and the lack of objection from the defendant. The Board awarded the full requested amount of $7,600.00 in attorney's fees to applicant's counsel.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's FeesWrit of ReviewAppeals BoardReasonable FeeAppellate ServicesApplicant's AttorneyDefendant's PetitionCase-by-case basisJudicial Review
References
Case No. ADJ10765191
Regular
May 18, 2018

LARHONISH CAREY vs. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

Applicant's attorneys seek reconsideration of a $0.00 attorney's fee award where their Compromise and Release contemplated a $1,350.00 fee. The Board granted reconsideration, finding procedural errors in the attorney's fee disclosure forms and the signing of the C&R by a non-attorney representative. The Board will affirm the $0.00 fee award unless the attorneys correct these deficiencies within 15 days.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney FeesLabor Code section 4906WCAB Rule 10773Non-attorney Hearing RepresentativeFee Disclosure StatementAttorney DisclosureExpedited Trial Hearing
References
Showing 1-10 of 2,972 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