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. ADJ7516108
Regular
Jun 06, 2011

ANGELICA CROTTE vs. UFO, INC., ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Virginia Surety's petition for removal because it was unverified, violating WCAB Rule 10843(b). The WCAB also noted the petition's excessive length and improper attachments, which violated multiple rules, including CA Rule 10232(a)(10) and WCAB Rule 10842(c). Based on these egregious violations, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose a $500 sanction on Virginia Surety's counsel, Sophia E. Martinez, pursuant to Labor Code section 5813.

Petition for RemovalUnverified PetitionWCAB RulesLabor Code 5813SanctionsFrivolousWillful Failure to ComplyWCJAdministrative Law JudgeVirginia Surety Company
References
1
Case No. VNO 0409413
Regular
Jul 18, 2008

LINDA SALVANERA vs. KELLY TEMPORARY SERVICES, CNA CASUALTY OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and issued a notice of intent to sanction defense attorney Ian D. Paige for attaching previously presented or record documents to his petition for reconsideration without alleging newly discovered evidence. This action violated WCAB regulations and is considered a sanctionable bad-faith tactic under Labor Code §5813 for willful failure to comply with regulatory obligations. The Board intends to impose a $200 sanction unless the attorney demonstrates good cause to the contrary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Bad Faith ActionsRegulatory ViolationIan D. PaigeStockwell Harris Widom Woolverton & MuehlDue ProcessNotice of Intention
References
11
Case No. ADJ8887982
Regular
Aug 29, 2014

ALVARO VIRGEN vs. COSTA VIEW FARM 2, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves sanctions imposed on attorney Kyle K. Neilsen under Labor Code § 5813. Neilsen's apology for contemptuous remarks about a Workers' Compensation Judge was deemed insufficient as he continued to justify his behavior. The Board found his attempt to excuse his actions indicated a lack of appreciation for the severity of his offense. Consequently, Neilsen was ordered to pay $950.00 in sanctions to the General Fund.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsLabor Code § 5813WCJ EllisContemptuous statementsJustificationFrustrationPleadingTravelOrange County
References
0
Case No. SAC 0361364
Regular
Jul 11, 2008

AMBER DeFAZIO vs. RESORT AT SQUAW CREEK, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves sanctions against defense counsel for filing improperly documented petitions and a response without permission. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's award of temporary total disability, remanding the case to determine the precise commencement date of indemnity payments for accurate application of Labor Code section 4656. The Board also upheld the WCJ's exclusion of the employer's modified work offer exhibit as irrelevant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10842Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10848Incomplete Verification
References
1
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
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2006

Command Cinema Corp. v. VCA Labs, Inc.

Command Cinema (Plaintiff) sued VCA Labs (Defendant) for breach of express contract, conversion, and breach of implied contract regarding the loss of master tapes for two adult films, 'The Last X-Rated Movie' (LXRM) and 'The Firestorm Trilogy' (FT). VCA moved to dismiss and for summary judgment on several claims, and in limine to exclude certain damages. Command cross-moved for summary judgment on conversion. The court denied VCA's summary judgment motion on the FT breach of contract claim but granted Command's summary judgment on both FT and LXRM breach of contract claims. The court granted VCA's summary judgment motions on conversion and implied breach of contract, consequently denying Command's cross-motions on these claims. Regarding damages, the court granted VCA's motion in limine to exclude lost profits for the FT contract but denied it for the LXRM contract, allowing Command to present evidence for lost asset value for LXRM. Punitive damages were also precluded.

Breach of ContractConversionImplied ContractSummary JudgmentMotion in LimineLost ProfitsPunitive DamagesMaster TapesBailmentContract Interpretation
References
45
Case No. VNO 465419
Regular
Jul 11, 2008

ALFREDO GONZALES vs. TRW SPACE & ELECTRONICS, AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant was awarded further medical treatment and reimbursement for self-procured treatment, but no permanent disability. The defendant appealed, arguing errors regarding permanent disability, the clarity of a third-party credit, and the WCJ's explanation for the no permanent disability finding. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, clarifying the third-party credit to apply against all benefits up to the applicant's net recovery, and imposed a $100 sanction against defense counsel for attaching extraneous documents to the reconsideration petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionsLab. Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10842Petition for ReconsiderationSecond Findings and AwardIndustrial Respiratory Injury
References
2
Case No. LAO 0851435
Regular
Feb 21, 2008

JOSE LUIS NUNO vs. CARNICERIA LA MEJOR, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision applying the old disability rating schedule, finding no authority to alter it. The Board also imposed sanctions of $500 jointly and severally against attorney Greg T. Wang and State Compensation Insurance Fund for procedural violations, including filing an amended petition that ignored prior decisions and the applicant's response. These sanctions were reduced from the initially proposed $1,000 due to mitigating factors such as Mr. Wang's inexperience and potential file review errors.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsReconsiderationDisability Rating ScheduleFinal DecisionPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ Report and RecommendationMitigating CircumstancesNew Attorney ExperienceElectronic File Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ10307427
Regular
Mar 21, 2017

CHRISTOPHER DEVEREUX vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Permissibly Self-Insured; administered by THE HARTFORD

This case concerns an award of additional attorney's fees for applicant's counsel, pursuant to Labor Code § 5801. The Third District Court of Appeal remanded the matter for this purpose after denying the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. The parties stipulated to reasonable attorney's fees of $2,500.00. The Board has issued an award of these appellate attorney's fees in favor of the applicant's counsel, payable in addition to any compensation awarded to the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feesPetition for Writ of Reviewappellate attorney's feesstipulationawardState Compensation Insurance FundThe Hartfordremanded
References
1
Case No. ADJ7010013
Regular
Jun 28, 2010

PAMELA VAN ZANDT vs. NIKE, INC COLE-HAAN, OLD REPUBLIC ADMINISTERED BY ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an attorney's fee award. The defendant incorrectly claimed the issue of fees was not raised and that they were aggrieved by the award. The Board found the defendant was not aggrieved, as fees were payable from the applicant's benefits, and the issue was properly noted in the pre-trial statement. Consequently, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions on the defendant's counsel for filing a frivolous petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardExpedited HearingTemporary DisabilityAttorney's FeeLabor Code § 5813SanctionsBad Faith ActionsFrivolous Petition
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,703 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