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. ADJ9932467
Regular
Oct 16, 2017

THERESA MCFARLAND vs. REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision that "Return-To-Work" supplemental payments under Labor Code section 139.48 are not "compensation" as defined by Labor Code section 3207. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to a second penalty under Labor Code section 5814 for the employer's delay in providing a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit voucher, as that delay did not cause a delay in a compensable benefit. The Board found that the applicant's penalty claim for the voucher delay was already resolved and that imposing a second penalty for a non-compensable benefit delay would be unfair and against the principle of balancing justice.

Labor Code section 139.48Return-To-Work supplemental paymentscompensation definitionLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814 penaltyLabor Code section 4658.7 voucherSupplemental Job Displacement Benefitcompromise and release agreementGage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.unreasonable delay
References
1
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

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. ADJ16283940
Regular
Feb 18, 2025

DEXTER HAYNES vs. TRANSFORCE, INC.; RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM

Dexter Haynes sought reconsideration of a November 27, 2024 Findings and Order, which denied his entitlement to a second Return-to-Work Supplement (RTWS) payment under Rule 17302(b). Haynes argued that the rule is inconsistent with Labor Code section 139.48 and unconstitutional due to improper delegation of authority. The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations contended the rule is valid and the Appeals Board lacks jurisdiction to invalidate it. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration to further review the validity and consistency of Rule 17302(b) with section 139.48, deferring a final decision.

Return-to-Work SupplementRTWSRule 17302(b)Labor Code section 139.48statutory authorityunconstitutional delegationDirector of Department of Industrial Relationsen banc decisionPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
14
Case No. ADJ1884066
Regular
Nov 19, 2008

RICHARD REED vs. BAYSIDE INSULATION AND CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an Order Approving Compromise and Release where the settlement expressly excluded future Labor Code section 139.5 benefits. The defendant argued this exclusion was an error, as they intended to settle vocational rehabilitation benefits. The Board found the exclusion unnecessary and legally inconsequential as Labor Code section 139.5 did not apply to this applicant's injury date, and job displacement benefits are covered under a different section.

Compromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 139.5vocational rehabilitationsupplemental job displacement benefitsLabor Code section 4658.5future benefitsindustrial injuryupper extremitiesinsulator
References
0
Case No. ADJ3550549 (LAO 0884192)
Regular
Sep 22, 2016

JACK DUPONT (Dec'd), ANYAWAN DUPONT (Widow) vs. C.R. ENGLAND, INC.; XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by BROADSPIRE

This case involves a remand from the Court of Appeals to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code Section 5801. Applicant's attorney and the defendant's attorney jointly stipulated to an award of $11,600.00 to resolve this issue. The WCAB approved this stipulation and returned the matter to the trial level.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feesWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardremandedstipulationapplicant's attorneydefendant's attorneyjoint lettertrial levelaward
References
0
Case No. ADJ2567272 (AHM 0105012)
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

, Applicant, FELIX NINO MOTA vs. ALLGREEN LANDSCAPE; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by FARA Adjusting Services

Applicant's attorneys requested $51,900 in attorney's fees under Labor Code Section 5801 for work related to a writ of review. The Appeals Board found the declarations supporting the request inadequate due to lack of itemization and justification for the hours and rates. Consequently, the Board may award a fee of up to $16,000, but reserves the right to award substantially less or nothing at all due to the potentially inflated nature of the initial request. Applicant's attorneys must provide detailed itemizations and show good cause to receive any fee.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feespetition for writ of reviewAppeals Boarddeclarationsitemized billingshourly ratecertified workers' compensation specialistclerical tasksunreasonably inflated
References
9
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 8,763 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