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. ADJ9613492
Regular
Sep 05, 2025

BRIGITTE PAIGE vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Brigitte Paige, an office assistant, sustained injuries to her lumbar spine, hip, and psyche in 2014 while employed by the County of Riverside. San Diego Imaging, Inc., doing business as California Imaging Solutions, sought reimbursement for medical-legal services which the Workers' Compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denied in Findings and Orders (F&O) on December 21, 2020. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found that the defendant's objection to an earlier Order Allowing Costs was untimely, making that order effective on April 2, 2019. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's F&O, substituted a new F&O finding the defendant liable for payment based on the April 2, 2019 order, and deferred the issue of costs and sanctions to the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrdersCost PetitionerMedical-Legal ServicesSubpoena Duces TecumCompromise and ReleaseStipulations with Request for AwardOrder Allowing CostsTimeliness of Objection
References
Case No. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
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
Case No. ADJ3792740 (OAK 0325116)
Regular
Dec 12, 2008

BONNIE REDDRICK vs. TENET/DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant's attorney. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the determination of these costs following the denial of the defendant's petition for review. The Appeals Board awarded $152.21 in costs, representing verifiable delivery expenses, as in-house copying, mailing, and labor costs are considered overhead and not recoverable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Johnson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Supreme Court of CaliforniaItemized CostsDelivery CostsMailing CostsCopying Costs
References
Case No. ADJ9945229
Regular
Feb 20, 2018

THERESA HAVENS vs. KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an Order for Costs, which directed the defendant to pay $\$500.00$ for a deposition. The Board found that an Order for Costs constitutes a "final" order as it determines a substantive liability for the defendant. Therefore, reconsideration was the appropriate remedy, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder for CostsRescinded OrderTrial LevelWCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeFinal OrderSubstantive LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory Orders
References
Case No. ADJ3213893 (AHM 0133460)
Regular
Sep 30, 2013

JOHN WIRTZ vs. MCKINLEY CHILDREN'S CENTER, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an appeal by the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) challenging a WCJ's order to pay $424.40 for a deposition. SCIF argued their due process rights were violated as their objection to the costs was seemingly not considered before the order was issued. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This decision was based on the finding that SCIF was denied its due process right to be heard regarding the costs.

Labor Code Section 5811Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ OrderDue Process DenialDeposition CostsDholakia & AssociatesIke Kerhulas Ph.D.Interim OrderFinal OrderRight to be Heard
References
Case No. ADJ3736897 (RIV 0044021)
Regular
Apr 07, 2014

TERESA BOLTON vs. PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petitions for removal, finding the defendant's petition for reconsideration untimely. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order vacating a prior minute order that required the defendant to pay $300 to the lien claimant. Consequently, the November 27, 2013 minute order, requiring the defendant to pay the costs, was reinstated. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWCJ AuthorityMinute OrderLien ClaimantCosts AwardRescinded OrderReinstated OrderAppeals Board
References
Case No. ADJ455873 (LAO 0886539)
Regular
Sep 26, 2016

JAMES TOWNSEND vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, HARBOR DIVISION

This case concerns a lien claimant, BCP Collections, Inc., seeking reconsideration of an order denying its lien for $\$8,661.87$. The initial denial was based on BCP's alleged failure to provide proof of service for its Notice of Intention to allow the lien. However, the administrative law judge later vacated this order, recognizing proof of service had been timely filed. Consequently, the Appeals Board dismissed BCP's petition for reconsideration because the rescinded order was not a final decision. As no final determination of the lien currently exists, reconsideration is procedurally improper.

BCP CollectionsNotice of IntentionProof of ServiceEAMSLien ClaimPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing LienLien ConferenceRescinded OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
Case No. ADJ422285
Regular
Jun 01, 2010

KATHLEEN JONES vs. PALMDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT; TIG administered by RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT

The defendant sought removal of an order requiring reimbursement for deposition costs, arguing procedural error and that a less costly method was available. The Appeals Board denied removal, deeming the order a final decision on costs subject to reconsideration. The Board granted reconsideration on its own motion due to the order's non-compliance with procedural rules for "walk-through" orders. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for removalOrder for costsDeposition costsSupplemental reportDue processGood cause objectionReconsideration on Board motionFinal orderSubstantive rightLiability
References
Case No. ADJ6473659, ADJ6680091
Regular
Jan 27, 2014

LEANDRO GARCIA vs. CABRILLO CARE CENTER, CAREWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant's attempt to appeal an administrative law judge's (WCJ) order rescinding a prior lien allowance. The Appeals Board dismissed the reconsideration petition, finding the rescission order to be interim and not a final order subject to reconsideration. The Board also denied the petition for removal, concluding that the WCJ acted correctly in rescinding the lien allowance due to service issues and conflicting timelines. Ultimately, the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the lien claim's merits.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Rescinding Order Allowing LienCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code section 5900(a)final orderinterim ordersAppeals Board Rule 10859WCJ
References
Showing 1-10 of 9,658 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