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. ADJ3395089 (STK 0177203) ADJ2229380 (STK 0196966)
Regular
Apr 20, 2009

ROBERT MILLER vs. CAROL-CARTER DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board initially proposed sanctions against attorney Michael Linn, Esq., mistakenly listing the service date for his objection period. Despite Mr. Linn filing objections on March 4th and April 6th/9th, which were not technically untimely based on the actual service dates, the Board granted him further opportunities to respond. Ultimately, the Board extended the deadline to May 20, 2009, for Mr. Linn to file any additional objections to the proposed $\$ 500.00$ monetary sanction, citing potential service discrepancies and aiming to avoid any appearance of prejudice.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardmonetary sanctionsnotice of intentiondue processservice date discrepancyobjection to sanctionsadditional timeCalifornia Code of Regulationsfurlough directivesstate holidays
References
2
Case No.
Regular
Oct 29, 2009

TONY PACHECO, ANDREW ARMIJO, MARTHA MARIN, JOSE CONTRERAS, PERRY LOFTON, VITALINO AJVIX, MARTHA HERNANDEZ vs. GLOBAL WIRELESS, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CUTTING EDGE SUPPLY COMPANY; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, AVEC SERVEALL; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, GEHR INDUSTRIES, INC.; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, AMERICAN METAL RECYCLING; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STRICTLY WHOLESALE ADA KENDALL SIGN; and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.

The Appeals Board issued an Order consolidating cases and a notice of intention (NIT) to impose monetary sanctions on CMS Network, Inc. and its representatives for misstatements of law. A hearing is set for November 18, 2009.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMonetary SanctionsNotice of Intention (NIT)Petitions for ReconsiderationMisstatements of LawGood CauseHearingObjectionAttorney ServiceRecusal
References
2
Case No. ADJ8481546
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

STEPHEN PRICE vs. WESTERN NATIONAL SECURITIES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant who petitioned for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Judge's findings regarding medical treatment and MPN compliance. The Appeals Board has granted the petition for further study and issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against the applicant's attorney, Susan M. Garrett and her law firm. The basis for the potential sanctions includes the attorney's petition exceeding page limits, failing to follow procedural rules, and making arguments unsupported by the record. The Board will consider imposing monetary sanctions and attorney fees if good cause to the contrary is not shown within ten days.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationMedical Provider NetworkMPNself-procured medical treatmentunreasonable delayunreasonable denialsanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Board Rule 10561
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stites v. Gillum

Attorney Robert Stites appealed a sanctions order imposed under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 for filing a 'groundless' and 'bad faith' counter-petition. Stites, representing Ellen Kirkham, had sued Karen Gillum for interference with a familial relationship, which the trial court deemed an abolished alienation of affections claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Stites's pleadings did not establish a viable cause of action or a good faith extension of existing law, nor did they properly allege intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court upheld the finding of bad faith and the $18,000 monetary sanctions awarded to Gillum. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

SanctionsAttorney MisconductRule 13Groundless PleadingsBad FaithAlienation of AffectionsIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressFamilial Relationship InterferenceTexas Family LawAppellate Review
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Deka Realty Corp.

This appellate opinion addresses the proper assessment of contempt sanctions and civil penalties against Deka Realty Corp. for numerous housing code violations. The court clarifies that civil contempt fines must compensate aggrieved tenants for actual damages, not be based on a multiplication of statutory maximums per violation, and remits for a damages hearing. Criminal contempt fines, intended to vindicate court authority, were reduced to $1,000 per contemnor. The court also held that while serious monetary sanctions can trigger a constitutional right to a jury trial, Deka Realty Corp. waived this right by failing to make a timely demand. Civil penalties against Deka were also reduced.

Contempt sanctionsCivil penaltiesHousing code violationsJury trial rightJudiciary LawCivil contempt finesCriminal contempt finesConsent decreeLandlord-tenant disputeDue process
References
56
Case No. 2011-43366
Regular Panel Decision

in Re Noble Drilling (Jim Thompson), LLC

Noble Drilling (Jim Thompson), LLC, seeks mandamus relief from the trial court’s March 4, 2014 sanction order. The sanctions were imposed due to a 15-month delay in producing photographs of an accident scene where Salvadore Maciel was injured. Noble argues the trial court abused its discretion in striking two of its defenses (contributory negligence and open and obvious character of vessel conditions) and in awarding over $50,000 in additional monetary sanctions. The court conditionally grants mandamus relief, in part, directing the trial court to vacate the portion of the order striking Noble's defenses, while denying relief regarding the monetary sanctions.

Mandamus ReliefSanctions OrderDiscovery AbuseStriking DefensesMonetary SanctionsCivil ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionE-DiscoveryAttorney's FeesEvidence Exclusion
References
14
Case No. ADJ332528 (AHM 0104042)
Regular
Mar 22, 2011

ERNEST DANIELS vs. PIEDMONT ENGINEERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board imposed a $250.00 sanction against the State Compensation Insurance Fund and its attorney, Maria Frias Callejas. This sanction was issued due to their failure to respond to a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions and their violation of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure. No timely objection demonstrating good cause was filed. Consequently, they are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the sanction to the Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsState Compensation Insurance FundMaria Frias CallejasRules of Practice and ProcedureNotice of IntentionGood CauseTimely ResponseJoint and Several LiabilityAttorney for Defendant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene v. Young

This case concerns an appeal by attorneys Liza Greene and Corey Mills against a sanctions order issued by a family court. The sanctions were imposed following a 'Joint Motion to Enforce Agreed Order Lifting Stay and Request for Additional Relief' filed in bankruptcy court, primarily targeting attorney Patsy Young for allegedly hindering Ronald Repine's release from jail for child support contempt. The family court sanctioned Greene and Mills not only under Rule 13, as originally sought by Young, but also based on its inherent power, Chapter 10, Disciplinary Rules, and the Lawyers Creed, citing false statements and causing Young's arrest. The appellate court reversed and rendered, finding that the appellants lacked proper notice for sanctions under Chapter 10, inherent power, Disciplinary Rules, and the Lawyers Creed. Furthermore, the appellate court ruled that the family court lacked jurisdiction to impose Rule 13 sanctions concerning a motion filed in federal bankruptcy court.

SanctionsAttorney EthicsJurisdictionDue ProcessTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 13Bankruptcy LawFamily LawChild Support EnforcementContemptAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. ADJ6620175
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

CAMELLA MORA GONZALEZ vs. KAY'S CLEANERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is imposing sanctions under Labor Code § 5813 against Innovative Medical Management and lien claimant Priority Care Medical Transportation for $1,000.00, jointly and severally. Additionally, sanctions of $250.00 are imposed against Louis Heard, the lien claimant's hearing representative. These sanctions were ordered due to a failure to object to a previously issued notice of intention, following the Board's affirmation of the dismissal of the lien claim. The sanctioned parties did not provide any written objection demonstrating good cause to avoid the sanctions.

Labor Code § 5813SanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimDismissalPriority Care Medical TransportationInnovative Medical ManagementLouis HeardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardHearing Representative
References
0
Case No. ADJ962796 (ANA 0403408)
Regular
Aug 26, 2015

JAMES RODNEY RICHARD vs. HOUSTON ASTROS

Attorneys for both the applicant and defendant were sanctioned $50.00 each for failing to follow the Board's explicit instructions. The attorneys improperly filed a stipulation for appellate attorney's fees with a district office instead of the Office of Commissioners. This oversight led to an inaccurate award and necessitated further Board action. While acknowledging the attorneys' apologies and assurances of future compliance, the Board imposed the minimal sanction due to the clear disregard of its directives.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsAppellate Attorney's FeesStipulationNotice of IntentionDistrict OfficeOffice of CommissionersLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Amended Award
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,736 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