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. 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
3
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

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. SDO 0312666
Regular
Jul 09, 2007

FELINO CARIASO vs. SOLAR TURBINES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant's counsel $5,000 in attorney's fees for responding to defendant's petition for writ of review, disallowing a portion of the requested hours and reducing the hourly rate from $275 to $250. The Board found the complexity of the issues and cited authorities to be of "average complexity." Additionally, $486.45 in costs were awarded for reproduction and binding of legal documents, supported by submitted bills.

Labor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Attorney's FeesCostsPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealRemandSupplemental AwardAppellate Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly Rate
References
3
Case No. FRE 192364, FRE 192365, FRE 198592
Regular
Sep 21, 2007

CAROL MCKINLEY vs. RAMALLAH, INC./GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves a request for additional attorney's fees and costs following a successful defense against a defendant's petition for writ of review. The Appeals Board reviewed the itemized hours and requested rate, disallowing time spent on specific tasks deemed clerical or administrative. Ultimately, the Board awarded $\$ 2,100.00$ in attorney's fees and $\$ 49.45$ in costs, recognizing the applicant's attorney's experience and the outcome of the appeal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealRemandLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Certified Workers' Compensation SpecialistHourly RateCosts on Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
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
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2000

RLI Insurance v. New York State Department of Labor

This appeal concerns a dispute between a surety and the Department of Labor over funds held by a school district. The surety, after posting performance and payment bonds for a public improvement project, expended over $176,000 to complete the project and pay laborers following the contractor's default. The Department of Labor sought to withhold funds from the school district for the contractor's underpaid wages on both the subject project and an unrelated one, invoking Labor Law § 220-b (2) (a) (1). The Supreme Court dismissed the surety's application, ruling that the Department of Labor's claim for underpaid wages, even from unrelated projects, was superior. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, establishing that Labor Law § 220-b (2) creates a statutory trust for underpaid wages that takes precedence over a surety's subrogation claims.

Surety bondsPerformance bondPayment bondPublic improvement projectSubrogation rightsUnderpaid wagesPrevailing wageStatutory trustLien LawLabor Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 8,004 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