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. ADJ9274286
Regular
Feb 19, 2015

RAMON CERVANTES vs. CBS OUTDOOR INC.

The Appeals Board denied reconsideration and dismissed removal, upholding the WCJ's findings. Applicant sought contempt charges and attorney's fees due to an ex parte communication with a PQME, but the Board found such remedies discretionary and not mandated under the circumstances. Declaratory relief regarding PQME report admissibility is premature; admissibility will be determined at trial. The Board dismissed removal as reconsideration is the proper procedural remedy for this final order.

ex parte communicationPQMEdeclaratory reliefcontemptsanctionsremovaladmissibility of reportsdiscretionary powerindirect contemptdirect contempt
References
Case No. ADJ2630339 (GRO 0034290)
Regular
Mar 10, 2011

MIKE REDSTONE vs. GREKA INTEGRATED, INC., CHARTIS COSTA MESA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a finding of contempt against Billing Dynamics for failing to appear at a lien conference. The WCAB found that a notice of hearing does not constitute a direct order, and that there was insufficient evidence that Billing Dynamics willfully disobeyed a specific order. The Board noted that while contempt is a serious sanction, other sanctions might be applicable if Billing Dynamics' conduct is deemed a bad faith tactic without reasonable excuse. Therefore, the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantDeclaration of ReadinessContemptOrder to Show CauseWillful DisobedienceNotice of HearingDue ProcessRescinded Order
References
Case No. ADJ3107843 (MON 0208626)
Regular
Oct 05, 2009

CHRIS DERBOGHOSSIAN vs. ALL TUNE & LUBE, ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, CRAWFORD & COMPANY

The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision except for the attorney's fees award for the applicant's wife deposition; the contempt order was rescinded as the WCJ lacked authority to address indirect contempt.

WCABremovalreconsiderationdisqualificationcontemptindirect contemptLabor Code section 5814transportation expenseattorney feesmedical treatment
References
Case No. ADJ3741925 (VNO 0106922) ADJ3558542 (VNO 0106921)
Regular
Jul 06, 2012

MICHELE KOTLARCHICK vs. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied General Motors' Petition for Reconsideration regarding a $500 contempt citation. The Board found the defendant's counsel persistently argued a point after the judge ruled against him and warned of contempt. This continued defiance constituted deliberate disobedience and flouting of the court's authority. Additionally, the Board denied the Petition for Removal concerning a discovery order, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMichele KotlarchickGeneral Motors CorporationPetition for ReconsiderationContempt citationVigorous advocacyDefiance of rulingDirect contemptLabor Code § 5309(c)Petition for Removal
References
Case No. ADJ8750255 (MF), ADJ9260421
Regular
Nov 16, 2020

DAVID MARTIN vs. CORCORAN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE EMPLOYEES OF SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted a petition for reconsideration to amend findings of fact. Petitioners, a lien claimant group, failed to appear at four duly noticed hearings, leading to the WCJ finding them in contempt and ordering attorney's fees and sanctions totaling $3,750. While the WCAB affirmed the sanctions for bad faith conduct under Labor Code § 5813 and former WCAB Rule 10561, it clarified that the WCJ erroneously found contempt, as only the Appeals Board has the authority to issue contempt findings. The WCAB found no good cause for petitioners' repeated failures to appear.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsContemptLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Failure to AppearBad Faith ConductAttorney FeesPetitioners
References
Case No. ADJ270028 (VNO 0373478)
Regular
Mar 12, 2012

LISA TOWNSEND vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's first Petition for Reconsideration as untimely and seeking review of a non-final order. The claimant's initial petition was filed after the deadline due to being received after 5 PM on the filing date. However, the Board granted reconsideration of the second petition concerning a contempt order and fine against the lien claimant's representative, to allow further review of the factual and legal issues. The Board also admonished the claimant for violating page limit and document attachment rules in their filings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder RescindingOrder Allowing LienOrder of ContemptLien ClaimantWCJuntimely petitionnon-final orderdue process
References
Case No. ADJ10070672 ADJ10070673 ADJ10070674
Regular
Sep 12, 2018

JOAO GOMEZ vs. JP ELECTRIC SERVICES, INC, NEW YORK MARINE \& GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a finding of contempt and award of fees against applicant's law firm, Gordon & Gordon. The WCAB found the original order procedurally defective, lacking proper notice and findings for contempt and sufficient documentation for the fee award. While rescinding the sanctions, the WCAB strongly admonished Gordon & Gordon for its repeated failures to appear, stating that proper procedures could have led to valid sanctions. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationContempt of CourtFee AwardProcedural DefectSubstantive DefectFailure to AppearShow Cause HearingLabor Code Section 5813SanctionsDue Process
References
Case No. ADJ2796539 (LAO 0840098) ADJ4363495 (LAO 0840099) ADJ7155229
Regular
Jun 15, 2010

Felix Aguilar vs. WAREHOUSE DISCOUNT CENTER; SCIF INSURED OXNARD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's petition for removal as moot because the AME examination date had passed. The defendant sought to prevent the applicant's attorney from having ex parte communications with the AME. While dismissing the petition, the Board clarified that ex parte communications with an AME are prohibited under Labor Code section 4062.3(f) and can result in significant penalties. These penalties include the aggrieved party's ability to terminate the evaluation and seek a new one, as well as sanctions for costs and attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalProtective OrderAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Ex Parte CommunicationLabor Code Section 4062.3Moot PetitionIrreparable HarmContemptAggrieved Party
References
Case No. LBO 0297361
Regular
Nov 28, 2007

ANTHONY TENNISON vs. NATIONAL PLANT SERVICES, CIGA by its servicing representative, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, for Reliance Insurance, in liquidation

The Appeals Board dismissed petitions for reconsideration and removal challenging an order compelling the applicant's wife to attend a continued deposition. The pro se petition was dismissed as untimely and unverified, while the attorney's petition was dismissed because discovery orders are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order, finding the wife waived her marital privilege by appearing and testifying, and cautioned parties about potential sanctions for their behavior.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Removaldepositionmarital privilegechild care reimbursementdiscovery orderinterlocutory orderfinal orderuntimely petition
References
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
Showing 1-10 of 23 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