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. ADJ8010054
Regular
Feb 18, 2016

REBECCA GAGE vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

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. 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. ADJ15251480
Regular
Jun 03, 2025

JACOB DIPIERO vs. CITY OF CAMPBELL, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

Applicant Jacob DiPiero sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision regarding jurisdiction over advance disability pension payments (ADPP). The WCJ had initially found the Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction to determine ADPP entitlement under Labor Code section 4850.4. The Appeals Board, referencing Gage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., concluded that ADPP constitutes compensation under Division 4 of the Labor Code, thus granting it exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. Consequently, the Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's March 12, 2025 Findings of Fact and Order, and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of ADPP entitlement.

Advance Disability Pension PaymentsLabor Code Section 4850.4Gage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative Trauma InjuryPolice OfficerIndustrial Disability RetirementCalPERSSkelly Hearing
References
10
Case No. ADJ6743994
Regular
Jan 24, 2011

STANLEY HOLDER vs. COUNTY OF NEVADA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration and denied the defendant's. The WCAB found the applicant's heart condition to be industrially caused based on the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.5, overriding the AME's fluctuating opinion. Permanent disability was increased from 4% to 20% and apportionment was disallowed under Labor Code section 4663(e). Finally, the defendant was denied a 15% reduction in permanent disability payments under Labor Code section 4658 because they failed to strictly prove an offer of regular work in the statutorily prescribed form and manner.

Industrial injuryDeputy SheriffCirculatory systemHeart diseasePermanent disabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3212.5Heart trouble presumption
References
6
Case No. ADJ3435344 (OAK 0335356), ADJ6942722
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

CHARLES KESECKER vs. MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

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. 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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 9,221 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