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 The WCAB rescinded the decision and returned the case to the trial level, finding the medical opinions of Dr.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. ADJ1601260 (VNO 0434802)
Regular
Dec 15, 2008

SIMON GARCIA, JR. vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration to allow attorney fees on the applicant's life pension award. While affirming the original award, the Board deferred the issue of attorney fees pending an investigation into whether counsel adequately notified the applicant of his right to independent counsel and counsel's adverse interest per CCR §10778. The WCJ will determine compliance with this notice requirement upon remand.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityAttorney FeeLife PensionReopening ClaimLien ClaimantWCJAdverse Interest
References
Case No. ADJ11024778
Regular
Jan 04, 2019

TIMOTHY EARNEST vs. CALIFORNIA STATE FAIR, CALIFORNIA FAIR SERVICES AUTHORITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Timothy Earnest's Petition for Reconsideration. Although the Board found the petition timely filed, it was ultimately dismissed due to the applicant's attorney's failure to comply with Appeals Board Rule 10778. This rule requires proof of service on the applicant regarding the attorney's adverse interest and the applicant's right to independent counsel when requesting an increased attorney's fee.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeCompromise and ReleaseProof of ServiceAppeals Board Rule 10778Attorney's FeeAdverse InterestIndependent CounselDismissal
References
Case No. ADJ3066350 (RIV 0081274)
Regular
Jun 07, 2011

RICHARD KAUTZER vs. KENNY STRICKLAND, INC./ HEMET OIL CO.; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Richard Kautzer's petition for reconsideration in this case. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and reasoning for the denial. Additionally, the Board noted that the applicant's attorney failed to comply with WCAB Rule 10778 regarding notification to the applicant of adverse interests and rights to independent counsel when requesting a fee increase. This procedural deficiency could have been grounds for dismissing the fee increase request.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKenny StricklandHemet Oil Co.State Compensation Insurance FundADJ3066350RIV 0081274Order Denying ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10778increased feeadverse interest
References
Case No. ADJ771611 (SRO 0139566)
Regular
Jan 06, 2011

THEODORA POLLACK vs. THE INN AT OCCIDENTAL, PREFERRED EMPLOYEES

This order denies the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a previous decision by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report in their decision. Additionally, the applicant's attorney's request for an increased fee was denied for failing to comply with WCAB Rule 10778 concerning notice of adverse interest and the applicant's right to independent counsel. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration is officially denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDENYING RECONSIDERATIONPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJWCAB Rule 10778proof of serviceadverse interestindependent counselattorney's fee
References
Case No. ADJ11483468
Regular
Apr 08, 2019

JUN HE vs. GROWER SUPPLY DYNASTY, EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's reduction of attorney fees from 15% to 12% ($27,600) of the $230,000 settlement. The Board agreed that the Compromise and Release did not demonstrate the case's above-average complexity to justify the higher fee. Furthermore, the attorney failed to comply with procedural rules regarding notice to the applicant about the adverse interest and right to independent counsel, providing an additional basis for denial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney FeesPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseNotice of Intention to Reduce Attorney FeesAdministrative Law JudgeWCJAppeals Board Rule 10778adverse interestindependent counsel
References
Case No. ADJ1677684
Regular
Feb 04, 2011

RENEE HOLLOWAY, vs. ROSS STORES; SEDGWICK CMS,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The claimant's attorney, Jerry Jacobson, sought to increase his awarded attorney fees from $4,800 to $6,000, alleging the original order conflicted with the compromise agreement. However, the Board found the petition non-compliant with CCR §10778 for failing to provide proof of service on the applicant regarding the attorney's adverse interest and the applicant's right to independent counsel. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on this procedural ground.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney FeesAdverse InterestIndependent CounselProof of ServicePetition for ReconsiderationDismissal
References
Case No. ADJ2107993
Regular
Sep 30, 2013

JUAN-CARLOS JALLATH vs. LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT WAREHOUSE

This case concerns an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, specifically challenging the calculated attorney's fee. The applicant also sought correction of a clerical error regarding the life pension amount, which the judge amended. However, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed by the Appeals Board because it failed to comply with procedural requirements, including verification and proper notification to the applicant regarding the attorney's adverse interest and applicant's right to independent counsel. The Board emphasized that these procedural rules are crucial for protecting applicant rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityLife PensionAttorney's FeesClerical ErrorAmended Findings and AwardPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ8391101
Regular
Jan 27, 2014

CARMEN HENNIGAR vs. DER WIENERSCHNITZEL, ILLINOIS MIDWEST SPRINGFIELD, MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE LAS VEGAS

In *Hennigar v. Der Wienerschnitzel*, the applicant's attorneys sought reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release, specifically challenging the reduced 12% attorney fee. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the primary issue was the petitioner's failure to comply with Appeals Board Rule 10778. This rule requires attorneys seeking increased fees to provide proof of service to the applicant, notifying them of the attorney's adverse interest and their right to independent counsel. As this procedural requirement was not met, the Board upheld the lower fee.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney's FeeAppeals Board Rule 10778Adverse InterestIndependent CounselCumulative Industrial InjuryUpper ExtremitiesBackSleep
References
Case No. ADJ10588461
Regular
Dec 21, 2018

MICHAEL BAISCH vs. BALFOUR BEATTY; GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Balfour Beatty and Gallagher Bassett. This dismissal was based on the applicant's attorney's failure to provide proof of service demonstrating compliance with Appeals Board Rule 10778. Rule 10778 requires an attorney seeking an increase in fees to notify the applicant of the adverse interest and the applicant's right to independent counsel. The WCAB accepted the applicant's attorney's request to file supplemental pleadings but ultimately found the petition grounds for dismissal due to this procedural deficiency.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportAppeals Board Rule 10848supplemental pleadingProof of ServiceAppeals Board Rule 10778attorney's feeadverse interestindependent counsel
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,194 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