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. ADJ3953416
Regular
Mar 07, 2013

CLENNON MOORE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm from the WCJ's order vacating a trial date. The Board also denied the defendant's petition to remove the applicant's non-attorney representative, Danny Boyd, from appearing, despite Boyd's history of abusive conduct. However, the Board issued a stern warning to Boyd that future misconduct will result in proceedings to remove his privilege to represent parties. The Board noted Boyd's potential violation of paralegal regulations and advised him to ensure compliance.

WCABPetition for RemovalHearing RepresentativeLabor Code Section 4907Cease and Desist OrderAbusive ConductNon-attorney RepresentativeSB 899Labor Code Section 5814Medical Mileage
References
3
Case No. ADJ7096210
Regular
Apr 11, 2011

ROBERTO GONZALEZ vs. JERRY'S FAMOUS DELI, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The Board granted removal to address the frivolous nature of the petition, which contained false factual assertions regarding a prior conference. Consequently, the Board intends to impose sanctions of up to $1,500 each against Hearing Representative Lance Garrett and Attorney Carl Feldman for their bad-faith actions. The Board also ordered Attorney Feldman to identify the representative who appeared at the January 26, 2011 conference.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder To Suspend ProceedingCompel Medical ExaminationPanel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Hearing RepresentativeSanctionsFrivolous PetitionBad Faith Actions
References
1
Case No. ADJ4702870 (LAO 0757820)
Regular
May 20, 2016

Rubie Johnson vs. Los Angeles County Mental Health

This case involves sanctions imposed on lien claimant David Silver, M.D., and his representatives for failing to appear at a properly noticed lien conference without good cause. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) granted reconsideration to affirm the sanctions and attorney fees awarded. The Board found that the excuses provided for the non-appearance were unreasonable and constituted bad faith actions under Labor Code section 5813. Consequently, Silver and his representatives were ordered to pay $\$250.00$ in sanctions to the General Fund and $\$2,100.00$ in attorney fees to the defendant.

Labor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561WCAB Rule 10770.1Lien ConferenceFailure to AppearBad Faith ActionsSanctionsAttorney's FeesPetition for ReconsiderationJoint and Several Liability
References
1
Case No. ADJ8819806
Regular
Oct 30, 2015

BENJAMIN ROBLES vs. RED DIGITAL CINEMA, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CHUBB GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior ruling that disallowed a lien claim and imposed sanctions. The Board intends to impose sanctions on the lien claimant and its representatives for violating procedural rules and making unsubstantiated claims. Specifically, the Board found the lien claimant failed to properly serve opposing counsel, failed to cite legal authority or reference the record in its petition, and made misleading statements regarding the judge's conduct. The Board cautions that non-attorney representatives are held to the same professional standards as attorneys and may face further disciplinary action.

AOE/COELien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsWCJLabor Code section 5402Subrogation LienBad Faith Settlement TacticsPresumption of CompensabilityWCAB Rule 10770.1(e)
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03294 [184 AD3d 223]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2020

Matter of Mauser

Marc R. Mauser, an attorney, was publicly censured by the Appellate Division, First Department, for professional misconduct. The Attorney Grievance Committee initiated disciplinary action against him for neglecting a client's personal injury case, failing to communicate for approximately 18 months, and making misrepresentations to the client, mediator, and the Committee regarding the case status and reasons for delays. Mauser also failed to diligently finalize a settlement and disburse funds promptly. The parties reached a joint agreement for discipline by consent, stipulating to violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglect of a legal matter, failure to promptly comply with client requests for information, failure to act with reasonable diligence, inadequate supervision of staff, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Despite aggravating factors, mitigating factors such as no prior discipline and acceptance of responsibility led to the agreed-upon sanction of public censure, which the Court granted.

Attorney disciplineprofessional misconductneglect of dutyfailure to communicatemisrepresentationpublic censureRules of Professional Conductsettlement delayclient communicationsupervisory failures
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. ADJ394613 (VNO 0530712); ADJ2266356 (VNO 0530710)
Regular
Jun 25, 2015

MARIA ESTRELLA vs. DURHAM SCHOOL SERVICES/NATIONAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, FIDELITY AND GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal filed by a lien claimant. The lien claimant argued substantial prejudice due to the employer's non-attorney representative. However, the Board found that the non-attorney representative complied with relevant regulations, and the lien claimant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Therefore, removal was deemed an extraordinary remedy not warranted in this case, with reconsideration serving as an adequate remedy if necessary.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationRule 10773Non-Attorney RepresentativeHearing RepresentativeLien Claimant
References
2
Case No. 2021-03335
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2024

Matter of Smallman

This disciplinary proceeding addresses attorney Philip J. Smallman's professional misconduct involving a sexual relationship with his client, CL. CL was a vulnerable survivor of childhood and adult sex trafficking, a fact known to Smallman. The attorney engaged in a series of inappropriate sexual text messages and ultimately physical contact with CL in his office while representing her in a criminal matter. The court found that Smallman violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(j)(1)(ii) and 8.4(h) by employing coercion or undue influence. The Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report, which sustained both charges, was granted, and Smallman was suspended from practicing law for five years.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsDisciplinary actionAttorney suspensionSexual relations with clientVulnerable clientFiduciary dutySex trafficking survivorRules of Professional ConductAppellate Division Second Department
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04524 [186 AD3d 23]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2020

Matter of Doris

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) initiated a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Lawrence A. Doris following client complaints of professional misconduct, including failure to file a personal injury case and lack of communication. Despite numerous attempts by the AGC through letters, emails, and a judicial subpoena, Mr. Doris failed to respond to the allegations or appear for a deposition. The AGC subsequently moved for his immediate suspension from the practice of law due to his willful noncompliance and failure to cooperate with their investigation. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the AGC's motion, finding that Mr. Doris's conduct warranted immediate suspension. This decision underscores the importance of attorney cooperation in disciplinary matters and protection of the public interest.

Attorney disciplineProfessional misconductNoncooperation with investigationImmediate suspensionGrievance CommitteeClient complaintFailure to communicateJudicial subpoenaPublic interest threatAppellate Division
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 7,002 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