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. ADJ7457572
Regular
Sep 12, 2011

LYNN MOTT vs. UCI MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding a denied attorney fee request under Labor Code section 5710. The applicant sought fees for a deposition attended by a non-attorney law graduate with extensive experience. The Board rescinded the prior denial, remanding the case for further proceedings. Applicant's counsel must now demonstrate compliance with *Arriaga* and CCR 10773 regarding supervision and disclosure of the non-attorney representative's status. Failure to do so will result in the denial of the fee request.

Labor Code Section 5710attorney feeshearing representativenon-attorney representativesupervisiondisclosureArriagaRule 10773petition for reconsiderationworkers' compensation appeals board
References
2
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. 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. 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. 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 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
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. ADJ10765191
Regular
May 18, 2018

LARHONISH CAREY vs. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY

Applicant's attorneys seek reconsideration of a $0.00 attorney's fee award where their Compromise and Release contemplated a $1,350.00 fee. The Board granted reconsideration, finding procedural errors in the attorney's fee disclosure forms and the signing of the C&R by a non-attorney representative. The Board will affirm the $0.00 fee award unless the attorneys correct these deficiencies within 15 days.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney FeesLabor Code section 4906WCAB Rule 10773Non-attorney Hearing RepresentativeFee Disclosure StatementAttorney DisclosureExpedited Trial Hearing
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 6,593 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