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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ11681826
Regular
Oct 23, 2020

ELIAS RIVERA vs. PINNACLE APPLICATION, INC, XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the award of attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5801 following an unsuccessful writ of review by the employer. The Court of Appeal found no reasonable basis for the writ and remanded the matter for attorney's fees. The Appeals Board clarified that all section 5801 claims are handled by the Board, not the WCJ. Consequently, a previous award by the WCJ was voided, and the Board issued a new award for $5,000 against the defendants as stipulated by the parties.

ReconsiderationAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Writ of ReviewReasonable BasisRemandStipulationAwardJurisdictionVoid Ab Initio
References
2
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. AHM 0097527
Regular
Jun 04, 2008

WILLIAM DAVID SCOTT vs. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Following a remand from the Court of Appeal for an award of attorney's fees and costs, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant's counsel $2,500 for appellate attorney's fees and $421.68 for costs. The Board found the requested 25 hours excessive for an answer of average complexity, awarding fees based on 10 hours at $250/hour, considering the attorney's experience, the results obtained, and the case's limited complexity. Costs for printing were allowed upon review of provided receipts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesCostsLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly RateCase ComplexityItemization
References
4
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2000

Curran v. Auto Lab Service Center, Inc.

Michael J. Curran, a deliveryman, was injured in a truck accident and, along with his wife, sued Auto Lab Service Center, Inc., alleging faulty repairs. They attempted to amend their complaint to add D&M Auto Parts Corp., Curran's employer, as a direct defendant, claiming D&M destroyed the damaged truck and thereby impaired their ability to recover from Auto Lab. D&M, a third-party defendant, cross-moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing Curran's injuries did not meet the 'grave injury' threshold under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the court modified the order: the plaintiffs' motion to amend was properly denied as D&M had no duty to preserve the truck, but D&M's cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint should have been granted because Curran did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined by statute.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAmended ComplaintSpoliation of EvidenceEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewDuty to Preserve Evidence
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,700 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