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. 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. 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. ADJ7483846
Regular
Feb 18, 2016

ASHLEY SWAIN vs. THE HELP GROUP, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claim for $\$3,157.15$ by DocCentral for discovery costs, specifically document photocopying services. The defendant employer challenged the lien, arguing DocCentral failed to prove compliance with legal requirements and necessity of services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the lien award, finding DocCentral acted as an agent for the applicant's attorney, thus exempting it from certain regulations. The Board also determined the services were reasonable and necessary for proving the contested claim, and the defendant waived objections by failing to raise them timely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantDocCentralMedical-Legal CostsDiscovery CostsReasonable and NecessaryUnrebutted Prima Facie ShowingAgent or Independent ContractorBusiness and Professions CodeLabor Code Section 4620(a)
References
Case No. ADJ7848295
Regular
Apr 10, 2012

RAMONA BURTON vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and dismissed reconsideration of a WCJ's order. The WCJ had improperly taken the case off calendar and allowed discovery to reopen for a new psychiatric injury claim, despite the applicant filing a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed indicating trial readiness. This prejudiced the defendant by allowing the applicant to develop evidence for an unclaimed injury after discovery closure. The Board ordered discovery closed as of the original Mandatory Settlement Conference date and returned the case to trial level for a new MSC to prepare for trial.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedInjury to PsychePanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent and Stationary StatusReopened DiscoveryClosure of DiscoveryInterlocutory Orders
References
Case No. ADJ11350389
Regular
Sep 23, 2025

JOSE PEREZ LEDESMA, Marjorie Martinez Interpreting vs. RUIZ & SON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that ruled a notice to produce was an invalid discovery mechanism. The WCAB found that California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10642 expressly permits the use of notices to produce in workers' compensation proceedings, similar to Civil Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). Therefore, the defendant was ordered to produce the relevant interpreter payment and Explanation of Review documents requested by the cost petitioner. This decision emphasizes the system's intent for a simple and nontechnical path to relief, allowing authorized discovery methods.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationNotice to ProduceSubpoenaWCJRemovalLabor CodeCode of Civil ProcedureRule 10642Explanation of Review
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. ADJ2001631 (LAO 0876091)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

SALVADOR AGUAYO, JR. vs. AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address an attorney's fee award of $4,500.00. This fee was awarded for services related to alleged prohibited ex parte communications with Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs), as per Labor Code section 4062.3. The Board rescinded the award, finding no explicit determination of prohibited communication occurred as the prior WCJ's orders were voided. The matter was returned to the trial level to first determine if prohibited ex parte communication occurred, and if so, to award fees based on incurred costs and attorney fees for related discovery.

Salvador Aguayo Jr.American Golf CorporationArch Insurance CompanyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardreconsiderationFindings and Awardattorney's feeprohibited communicationsQualified Medical EvaluatorsQME
References
Case No. FRE 0191303
Regular
Nov 27, 2007

NORMA OZUNA vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a finding that the defendant was not responsible for the costs of the applicant's vocational expert. The WCAB remanded the case to the trial level for further analysis, instructing the judge to consider the factors outlined in *Costa v. Hardy Diagnostic* regarding the reasonableness and necessity of expert costs. The decision does not comment on the merits of whether the costs are ultimately reimbursable.

Vocational expert costsLabor Code section 5811Costa v. Hardy DiagnosticPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleAppeals Board en banccumulative traumaHepatitis Ccorrectional officeragreed medical evaluatorfindings of fact and award
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,640 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