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. 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. 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. ADJ928027
Regular
Feb 03, 2016

DAVID TRINH vs. TZENG LONG USA, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

This case involves the suspension of Mike Traw's privilege to appear before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) under Labor Code Section 4907. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to suspend due to non-payment of sanctions and failure to respond. While Professional Lien Services, Inc. (PLS) sought extensions, neither Traw nor PLS provided a substantive response. Consequently, Traw's appearance privilege is suspended for ninety days due to his failure to comply with the WCAB's orders. Further action against PLS may occur if ordered sanctions remain unpaid.

Labor Code Section 4907Decision After RemovalNotice of IntentionSuspension of PrivilegeProfessional Lien ServicesMike TrawAppeals Board En BancSanction OrderInterference with Judicial ProcessWCAB
References
0
Case No. ADJ408254 (STK 0196694)
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

CLIFFORD E. SILVA (deceased) LINDA SILVA (widow) vs. DAVINDER JAGPAL, DBA D-BEST EXPRESS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

This case clarifies that the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEF) is shielded from penalties and sanctions under Labor Code section 5813, even for delayed payment of attorney fees, due to the specific limitations of liability in Labor Code section 3716.2. The Court of Appeal reversed a prior decision that would have allowed sanctions against the UEF for its tardiness in paying an applicant's attorney fee. Therefore, the UEF is not liable for the requested sanction in this matter.

RemittiturUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 3716.2Attorney's FeesDeath BenefitStipulations with Request for AwardCourt of Appeal OpinionWillful or Bad Faith Actions
References
1
Case No. ADJ9545376
Regular
Sep 16, 2019

MARTHA AMAVIZCA vs. UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS GROUP WEST, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found that interpreter fees for translating settlement documents are not medical-legal expenses, thus not subject to the penalty and interest provisions of Labor Code section 4622. However, the Board reminded the defendant that failure to pay routine matters can lead to sanctions under Labor Code section 5813, and the defendant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard on any sanctions. The case was returned to the trial level to address the lien claimant's petition for sanctions and costs.

WCABUniversal Logistics GroupState Compensation Insurance FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ordersuntimely paid invoicepenaltyinterestJoyce Altman InterpretersLabor Code section 5813
References
0
Case No. ADJ1688300 (OAK 0321767)
Regular
Jul 27, 2015

DEBBIE PARR (Dec'd) vs. LA XPRESS ASSEMBLY AND DISTRIBUTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether a deceased applicant's petitions for sanctions and attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5813 survive their death. The defendant argued these claims were barred by the statute of limitations (section 5405), which limits the time for collecting benefits. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding that sanctions under section 5813 are not "benefits" and therefore not subject to section 5405. Accordingly, the applicant's petitions for sanctions and attorney's fees do survive their death.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJLabor Code section 5814PenaltiesLabor Code section 5813SanctionsAttorney's Fees
References
5
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. ADJ6502736
Regular
Nov 21, 2011

JUAN BARCENAS vs. THE BEST MASTER ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, New Age Imaging Copy Service

This order imposes a $500.00 sanction against lien claimant New Age Imaging Copy Service for filing a frivolous petition for reconsideration without justification. The Board previously provided notice of its intent to sanction and allowed an opportunity to object, which the lien claimant failed to do. The sanction is for violating Labor Code section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2) regarding frivolous filings. Payment is due within twenty days to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for transmittal to the General Fund.

Frivolous petitionSanctionLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2)Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationNotice of intentionGood causeOpinion and Order Dismissing Petition for ReconsiderationGranting Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ8975085; ADJ8975086
Regular
May 12, 2017

AURELIO PEREZ vs. DEL RIO GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, CARE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision that sanctioned applicant's attorney $350.00 for violating Labor Code section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10561. The Board vacated the decision because the order did not specifically identify the sanctioned attorney, violating due process rights to notice and a fair hearing. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. The Board also noted the WCJ did not address the defendant's contention regarding a violation of Labor Code section 4062.3.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561SanctionsDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to be HeardFindings and OrderPetition for Removal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 9,740 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