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. ADJ11059431; ADJ11059347
Regular
Dec 02, 2020

PATRICIA DE LA RIVA vs. HORIZON PERSONNEL SERVICES, THE HARTFORD

This case involves a cost petitioner's request for reconsideration of a prior WCJ order. The WCJ had found that the cost petitioner waived further claims by not objecting to an order allowing only a portion of their requested costs. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This was because the WCJ failed to rule on all issues presented in the cost petitioner's petition, specifically penalties, interest, attorney's fees, and sanctions, as required by Labor Code § 5313.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing CostsPetition for CostsLabor Code § 5313WCJFindings of Fact and OrderAOE/COEHorizon Personnel ServicesThe Hartford
References
2
Case No. ADJ237189 (RIV 0058701)
Regular
May 22, 2009

DONALD K. SMITH vs. CITY OF SANTA ANA

This case concerns an applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration regarding appellate costs and attorney's fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, which had affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the heart and prostate but barred the skin cancer claim due to the statute of limitations. The Board ordered the applicant's attorney to reimburse the applicant $390 improperly solicited and received, while ordering the defendant to pay appellate costs of $382.79 upon confirmation of the reimbursement. The Board declined to increase the attorney's fee, finding it already exceeded typical ranges and that the attorney had not demonstrated entitlement to more.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemittiturStatute of LimitationsSkin CancerHeart InjuryProstate CancerPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeeAppellate Costs
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liggett v. Daily Worker

The court modified an order by granting motions to vacate the judgment for defendants Daily Worker and Hathaway, but denied it for defendant Colodny. It also struck a provision allowing Colodny to appear for examination based on a 1937 stipulation. The modified order was affirmed without costs. The court noted that a prior order of February 8, 1938, did not direct Colodny to appear for examination on April 1, 1938, making the subsequent finding of Colodny in contempt on April 26, 1938, an error, though no appeal was taken. Hathaway's situation differed from the April 26, 1938 order, allowing him to obtain relief.

Judgment VacatedContempt of CourtOrder ModificationAppellate ReviewStipulationAffirmed JudgmentMotions to VacateProcedural ErrorJudicial Concurrence
References
3
Case No. ADJ2151993 (SFO 0507276)
Regular
May 18, 2018

RICHARD JOHNSON vs. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF PACIFICA

This case concerns the award of appellate costs to the City of Pacifica. The Court of Appeal previously affirmed a decision in Pacifica's favor and ordered the City of South San Francisco (CSSF) to bear Pacifica's costs. Pacifica subsequently submitted a verified petition for costs totaling $1,425.00, which included electronic filing and paper copy expenses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found Pacifica's requested costs reasonable and awarded them against CSSF.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturFirst District Court of AppealPetition for ReconsiderationArbitratorPetition for CostsAppellate CostsReimbursementVerified PetitionSubstantiation of Costs
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tokyo Electron Arizona, Inc. v. Discreet Industries Corp.

This order addresses the plaintiff Tokyo Electron Arizona's (TAZ) application for reasonable attorney's fees and costs against defendants Discreet Industries and Ovadia Meron (Discreet), pursuant to Federal Rule 37. The court determines the appropriate award by assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended, applying the lodestar method. While acknowledging the high caliber of work, the court reduced Mr. Haug's hourly rate and applied a 10% overall reduction to the billed hours to account for potential overlap. Additionally, the court found TAZ's copying and transcript costs reasonable and partially awarded costs for a computer-generated Power Point presentation. Ultimately, TAZ was awarded $55,751.79 in fees and $5386.19 in costs, totaling $61,137.98.

Attorney's FeesCostsDiscovery SanctionsFederal Rule 37Lodestar MethodHourly RatesReasonable HoursEastern District of New YorkSouthern District of New YorkWork Product Doctrine
References
26
Case No. ADJ7047735
Regular
Jun 17, 2013

ANGELO TOTA vs. VERIZON SERVICES, SEDGWICK

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration regarding an Order allowing costs for applicant's former attorneys. The petition was filed by defendants Verizon Services and Sedgwick CMS, objecting to interpreter fees, but it failed to address the actual costs ordered. Crucially, the petition was not served on all adverse parties, a procedural defect that alone warrants dismissal. The Board dismissed the petition, also noting deficiencies in its substance and attorney representation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing CostsLabor Code Section 5811Interpreter FeesDepositionService of ProcessAdverse PartiesDismissalVerification
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vodopia v. Rider

The court reviewed an order granting the examination of defendant Joseph Flynn before trial. The order was modified in two key areas. Firstly, item (b) of the first ordering paragraph was amended to specify the defendants' actions related to removing the plaintiff's employees from work on contracts around May 18, 1936, and the subsequent refusal to allow union members to continue work. Secondly, the second ordering paragraph was modified to direct Joseph Flynn to produce all relevant records, minute books, and documents pertaining to the removal of workmen or work suspension on plaintiff's contracts in May 1936 at the Coney Island Sewage Treatment Plant, and any acts preventing union employment. As modified, the order was affirmed without costs by Justices Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston, and Close.

Examination Before TrialPre-trial DiscoveryOrder ModificationAffirmed OrderLabor DisputeEmployee RemovalWork StoppageRecord ProductionUnion EmploymentContract Disputes
References
0
Case No. ADJ7035398
Regular
Mar 10, 2010

ANDREW MERLOS vs. COCA COLA ENTERPRISES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Defendant Coca Cola Enterprises petitioned for removal of a WCJ's order requiring an adjuster to appear in person at trial with settlement authority. Defendant argued the adjuster was in Ontario, travel was costly, settlement authority was present at the MSC, and the order denied due process. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the order would not facilitate settlement and the expense was unjustified given the parties' positions. The Board amended the order to allow the adjuster to appear by telephone with settlement authority.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder to AppearSettlement AuthorityMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue ProcessQualified Medical EvaluationPermanent DisabilityTrial AppearanceTelephone Appearance
References
0
Case No. ADJ6726149
Regular
Sep 07, 2018

PEDRO HERNANDEZ vs. HENKEL LOCTITE CORPORATION, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over timely filing of a declaration for lien claimants, which the Appeals Board previously ruled was timely filed under statute and regulation. The Court of Appeal has remanded the case for the Board to determine if the defendant's petition for writ of review was frivolous. The Board is now giving notice of its intention to consider imposing attorney's fees and costs on the defendant pursuant to Labor Code section 5813. Parties are invited to submit briefing on whether such an order should be made.

Labor Code section 4903.05(c)(2)WCAB Rule 10770.7timely filednext business dayLabor Code section 5813frivolous petitionattorney's feescostswrit of reviewen banc decision
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 25,418 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