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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
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. ADJ695519 (VNO 0423671)
Regular
Aug 06, 2009

NORMA RIVAS vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award, affirming the reinstatement of a stipulation and award. However, the Board found error in the workers' compensation judge's award of attorney's fees and costs. The Board vacated this portion of the award, stating the judge's reasoning was insufficient and lacked specific statutory basis. The case is remanded for further proceedings to develop the record and allow the judge to address the claims for attorney's fees and costs under relevant Labor Code sections.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardStipulations With Request For AwardGood CauseAttorney's FeesCostsLabor Code Sections 581158135814.5
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. AHM 0097527
Regular
Jun 04, 2008

WILLIAM DAVID SCOTT vs. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Following a remand from the Court of Appeal for an award of attorney's fees and costs, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant's counsel $2,500 for appellate attorney's fees and $421.68 for costs. The Board found the requested 25 hours excessive for an answer of average complexity, awarding fees based on 10 hours at $250/hour, considering the attorney's experience, the results obtained, and the case's limited complexity. Costs for printing were allowed upon review of provided receipts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesCostsLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly RateCase ComplexityItemization
References
Case No. ADJ2209378 (VNO 0366651)
Regular
Oct 07, 2013

SCOTT LENETT vs. CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CORVEL CORPORATION/HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's petition to terminate liability for Applicant's pool maintenance award. The Board rescinded the prior decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The core issue is whether the Applicant is entitled to the full maintenance award when he no longer directly pays for or maintains the pool, but rather pays HOA dues that contribute to pool upkeep. The Board clarified that while the award itself is not inappropriate, reimbursement should be based on Applicant's actual out-of-pocket costs for pool maintenance.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPool Maintenance AllowanceAqua TherapyContinuing JurisdictionLabor Code Section 5803Labor Code Section 5804Termination of LiabilityMedical Treatment Award
References
Case No. ADJ4613165 (LAO 0778416) ADJ4149404 (LAO 0784600)
Regular
Jan 13, 2012

DENNIS SANCHEZ vs. LAR-PAR, INC./WESTSIDE DISTRIBUTORS; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, c/o CHARTIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration regarding the rescission of a previously approved Stipulations With Request for Award (SRA). The Board found merit in the defendant's argument that there was no good cause to set aside the SRA, especially since benefits had already been disbursed and accepted. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's October 28, 2011 order and reinstated the original September 15, 2011 Award approving the SRA. Defendant's allegations of applicant bad faith were noted but deferred to the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationStipulations With Request for AwardRescinding OrderAwardGood CauseLabor Code Section 5813Costs and SanctionsBad FaithFalsification of Documentation
References
Case No. ADJ2151993 (SFO 0507276)
Regular
May 18, 2018

RICHARD JOHNSON vs. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF PACIFICA

This case concerns the award of appellate costs to the City of Pacifica. The Court of Appeal previously affirmed a decision in Pacifica's favor and ordered the City of South San Francisco (CSSF) to bear Pacifica's costs. Pacifica subsequently submitted a verified petition for costs totaling $1,425.00, which included electronic filing and paper copy expenses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found Pacifica's requested costs reasonable and awarded them against CSSF.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturFirst District Court of AppealPetition for ReconsiderationArbitratorPetition for CostsAppellate CostsReimbursementVerified PetitionSubstantiation of Costs
References
Case No. ADJ9865530
Regular
Mar 20, 2015

Baldemar Gonzalez, Jr. vs. Morganite Industries, Gallagher Bassett

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The petition was dismissed because it was filed untimely and was not properly verified. Although the applicant alleged fraud in obtaining the award, and the stipulations appear to lack a required signature, the Board cannot act on these grounds due to procedural deficiencies and expired timeframes. The applicant may still pursue relief under the Board's continuing jurisdiction concerning rescission, alteration, or amendment of the award within five years of the date of injury.

Petition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for Awardfraudmisrepresentationuntimely filingverificationLabor Code Section 5902Labor Code Section 5903continuing jurisdictionLabor Code Sections 5803-5804
References
Case No. ADJ273572
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

DIANE DRUEBERT vs. KELLY STAFF LEASING, INC.

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to the applicant's counsel for successfully opposing the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review at the appellate level. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for this specific purpose. The Appeals Board awarded $4,350.00 in attorney's fees and $142.61 in costs, totaling $4,492.61, after reviewing the attorney's itemized time and the complexity of the appellate work.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Reasonable CostsCourt of AppealAppellate Attorney's FeesComplex IssuesLegislative IntentSocial Security Offset
References
Showing 1-10 of 6,658 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