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. 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. ADJ6550136
Regular
Sep 17, 2012

Vanessa Ford vs. County of San Bernardino

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's disqualification of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) due to ex parte communication during his deposition. The defendant's arguments that the deposition was permissible and that questions exceeded the medical issues were rejected. However, the Board clarified that the AME's prior reports remain admissible and the defendant may seek deposition costs.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)DisqualifiedEx Parte CommunicationDepositionQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Administrative DirectorPanel of NeurologistsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB)Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ)
References
Case No. ADJ422285
Regular
Jun 01, 2010

KATHLEEN JONES vs. PALMDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT; TIG administered by RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT

The defendant sought removal of an order requiring reimbursement for deposition costs, arguing procedural error and that a less costly method was available. The Appeals Board denied removal, deeming the order a final decision on costs subject to reconsideration. The Board granted reconsideration on its own motion due to the order's non-compliance with procedural rules for "walk-through" orders. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for removalOrder for costsDeposition costsSupplemental reportDue processGood cause objectionReconsideration on Board motionFinal orderSubstantive rightLiability
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. ADJ3213893 (AHM 0133460)
Regular
Sep 30, 2013

JOHN WIRTZ vs. MCKINLEY CHILDREN'S CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an appeal by the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) challenging a WCJ's order to pay $424.40 for a deposition. SCIF argued their due process rights were violated as their objection to the costs was seemingly not considered before the order was issued. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This decision was based on the finding that SCIF was denied its due process right to be heard regarding the costs.

Labor Code Section 5811Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ OrderDue Process DenialDeposition CostsDholakia & AssociatesIke Kerhulas Ph.D.Interim OrderFinal OrderRight to be Heard
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. ADJ10933682
Regular
Dec 04, 2020

AMY LI vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by Essential Interpreting Inc. (cost petitioner) concerning its claim for deposition preparation interpreting services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that the cost petitioner failed to prove its services were reasonable and necessary under Labor Code section 5811. The defendant, Kaiser Permanente, had specifically stated in its deposition notice that it would provide the interpreter for both preparation and deposition time. Since the cost petitioner did not demonstrate why using an interpreter of its choosing was necessary over the one provided by the defendant, their claim for reimbursement was denied.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5811Labor Code Section 5813deposition preparationinterpreting servicescost petitionerapplicantdefendantWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ9714303
Regular
Feb 07, 2023

BRENT REYNOLDS vs. HOSTESS BRANDS, FORMERLY SELF-INSURED ADMINISTERED BY SELFINSURED SECURITY FUND VIA TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Hostess Brands' Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who found that while Hostess Brands' communication regarding a non-refundable deposit for an Agreed Medical Evaluator's deposition was not in bad faith, it constituted an ex parte communication in violation of Labor Code section 4062.3(f). The ALJ also found the Applicant's counsel violated the same section by communicating with the evaluator without consulting the defense. As both parties violated the statute, the ALJ denied competing petitions for costs and sanctions, a decision affirmed by the Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorDeposition Fee AgreementNon-refundable DepositCross-examination FeesEx Parte CommunicationLabor Code section 4062.3Fee ScheduleMedical-legal Expenses
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,307 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