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. ADJ994369
Regular
Jan 19, 2014

JOSE JUAREZ vs. WATKINS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is reconsidering a decision that awarded the applicant medical mileage and a penalty for unreasonable delay in compensation payments but denied attorney's fees. The WCAB believes attorney's fees are warranted under Labor Code section 5814.5 for enforcing the payment of awarded compensation. The case is being returned to the trial level for the judge to determine and award these attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical Mileage Expense ReimbursementAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 5814.5Cumulative Industrial InjuryPulmonary System Injury
References
0
Case No. AHM 108812 AHM 108813 AHM 108814
Regular
Nov 06, 2007

OLIVIA ZAVALA vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

This case involves an award of attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following a successful defense against the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the Board to determine reasonable attorney's fees for the applicant's counsel's services. The applicant's attorney requested $5,171.89, but both parties ultimately stipulated to a total of $5,000.00 for attorney's fees and appellate costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeeLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealStipulationAppellate CostsMetropolitan Water DistrictReasonable Attorney's Fees
References
1
Case No. SAL 0113062
Regular
Jan 02, 2008

, Maria LOURDES TAPIA, vs. REGENT ASSISTED LIVING, ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision upholding a 24-visit limit for chiropractic treatment per industrial injury. The applicant argued that the statutory cap conflicted with the liberal construction mandate of Labor Code section 3202, but the Board found no ambiguity in the clear language of Labor Code section 4604.5(d)(1). The Board further clarified that the provision allowing employers to authorize additional visits in writing (LC 4604.5(d)(2)) did not remove the cap, nor did it render chiropractors meaningless within the workers' compensation system.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 4604.5(d)(1)chiropractic visitsoccupational therapyphysical therapyLiberal constructionLabor Code Section 3202employer authorizationFindings & Order
References
9
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. 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. ADJ4115370 (STK 0156243) ADJ2590810 (STK 0156247) ADJ7935132
Regular
Sep 05, 2013

DONALD MAGHUYOP vs. HULL'S WALNUT CREEK CHAPEL, MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an award of additional attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following a successful Petition for Writ of Review. The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the Board to determine reasonable fees for applicant's attorneys. Applicant's attorney sought $10,625.00 for 25 hours of work plus costs. The Board awarded $9,137.50 in attorney's fees, disallowing 3.5 hours for clerical tasks, and awarded the requested $529.00 in costs, for a total of $9,666.50.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental AwardAttorney's FeeAppellate CostsPermanent DisabilityCourt of AppealClerical TimeLien Claimants
References
3
Case No. ADJ10146503
Regular
Oct 20, 2018

ALAN KOON vs. RZ PLUMBING, INC.; AMTRUST

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to applicant's attorney, Robert Rassp, pursuant to Labor Code section 5801. The Second District Court of Appeals had previously remanded the matter for this purpose. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed Rassp's request for 13.25 hours of work and $865.59 in costs, totaling $6,165.59. The Board disallowed two hours of travel time due to lack of clarity on the reasonableness and nature of the activity. Ultimately, the Board awarded Rassp a total of $5,365.59 in attorney's fees and costs.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feescostsremandWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardbill of particularsreasonableness of feestravel time deductionawarded amounttrial level return
References
0
Case No. ADJ3905674 (SRO 0031254)
Regular
Feb 02, 2011

DAVID PELLETIER vs. UNITED STRUCTURES, INC., CIGA by its Servicing Facility CAMBRIDGE on behalf of FREMONT COMPENSATION, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its decision regarding attorney's fees. The applicant's attorney sought fees under Labor Code sections 4607 and 5814.5, arguing the defendant unreasonably failed to appoint a new case manager and pay prior bills. The Board affirmed the judge's finding that Labor Code § 4607 fees are inapplicable when the entire award is not terminated, and Labor Code § 5814.5 fees require an existing award and unreasonable refusal to pay. The Board found no evidence of unreasonable delay by the defendant in appointing a new case manager, thus denying the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAttorney's FeesLabor Code Section 4607Labor Code Section 5814.5Medical TreatmentCompromise and ReleasePetition for PenaltyNurse Case ManagerStipulations
References
2
Case No. ADJ6671169
Regular
Oct 16, 2013

Christian Fauria vs. Carolina Panthers, Great Divide Insurance Co., Berkley Specialty Underwriting Managers, LLC, Washington Redskins, ESIS Insurance, New England Patriots, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Travelers Indemnity Co., Golf Insurance Co., Seattle Seahawks

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior award finding California jurisdiction over Christian Fauria's claim due to lack of "regular employment" in California, as defined by Labor Code Section 3600.5(a). The case was remanded to the trial level to determine if jurisdiction exists based on injuries sustained within California or if the contract of hire was made in California, as per Labor Code Section 5305. The WCAB also instructed the judge to address all issues, including apportionment and liability periods under Labor Code Section 5500.5. The decision highlights the need for substantial evidence to establish jurisdiction and injury contribution within the state.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardChristian FauriaProfessional AthleteIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFurther Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600.5(a)Statute of LimitationsLabor Code Section 5500.5Jurisdiction
References
29
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 8,836 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