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. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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. ADJ3435344 (OAK 0335356), ADJ6942722
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding Labor Code section 4850 benefits but granted the defendant's petition regarding the Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's decision to set aside the Compromise and Release agreement. However, it reversed the finding of a Labor Code section 132a violation, holding the employer's mandatory psychological fitness exam was a lawful requirement for peace officers, not discriminatory based on the industrial nature of the injury. Consequently, the $10,000 award for discrimination and associated attorney's fees were vacated.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardCompromise and ReleaseTemporary Disability BenefitsLabor Code Section 4850Industrial InjuryPsycheHypertension
References
5
Case No. ADJ8010054
Regular
Feb 18, 2016

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed a prior ruling that disability pension advances under Labor Code section 4850.4 constitute "compensation" subject to penalties for unreasonable delay. The Board held that these advances are distinct from workers' compensation benefits and are administered through a separate system, thus not triggering Labor Code section 5814 penalties. This decision aligns with prior rulings regarding similar special benefits for public safety officers under section 4850. Consequently, any unreasonable delay in paying these advances is not subject to a penalty.

Labor Code section 4850.4disability pension advancescompensationLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814penaltyremovalreconsiderationdeputy sheriffCounty of Sacramento
References
20
Case No. ADJ3550549 (LAO 0884192)
Regular
Sep 22, 2016

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

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

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

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

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

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. ADJ9668616
Regular
Oct 05, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The WCAB affirmed the finding of industrial psyche injury for a police officer, holding the employer's arguments regarding insufficient medical evidence unpersuasive as the QME considered applicant's stressors. The Board rescinded the prior award, ruling the applicant was entitled to leave of absence without loss of salary (Labor Code section 4850) until January 15, 2015, when he consented to retirement, due to the employer's premature disability retirement application and the applicant not being permanent and stationary. This decision was based on Government Code section 21164, which prohibits involuntary retirement before the termination of section 4850 benefits or attainment of permanent and stationary status. The applicant was awarded accrued section 4850 benefits totaling $54,135.51 and future medical treatment.

PSYCHE INJURYLABOR CODE SECTION 4850PERMANENT AND STATIONARY STATUSGOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 21164INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY RETIREMENTGOOD FAITH PERSONNEL ACTIONSSUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCEPANEL QUALIFIED MEDICAL EVALUATORTEMPORARY DISABILITYLEAVE OF ABSENCE WITHOUT LOSS OF SALARY
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 11,285 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