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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leondopoulos v. Caradjas

The order was unanimously affirmed. The defendant was granted leave to answer the amended complaint within ten days after service of the order, with notice of entry. This is contingent upon the payment of $20 in costs and disbursements. No opinion was provided for this decision. The judges present for this order were Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis, and Shientag, JJ.

OrderAffirmedAmended ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsLeave to AnswerPanel DecisionJudicial Panel
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGinn v. Morrin

This order addresses the defendants' motion to vacate and set aside the service of various legal documents, including an order to show cause, affidavit, summons, and verified complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion. The decision included an award of twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. Defendants were also granted leave to answer within twenty days after the service of the order, contingent upon the payment of the aforementioned costs.

Motion to VacateService of ProcessOrder to Show CauseVerified ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsAffirmation of OrderLeave to Answer
References
2
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
5
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. 02 Civ. 1243
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2003

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC

This opinion addresses a discovery dispute concerning the production of electronic data stored on backup tapes in a gender discrimination lawsuit brought by Laura Zubulake against UBS. Following a prior order for a sample restoration of emails, Zubulake sought to compel UBS to produce all remaining backup emails at UBS's expense. The court, applying a seven-factor test, ruled that both parties must share the costs of restoring and searching the inaccessible backup tapes. Specifically, UBS is ordered to bear 75% of these costs, while Zubulake is responsible for the remaining 25%. However, UBS must exclusively cover all other costs, including the review and production of the electronic data once it has been converted to an accessible format, emphasizing that only costs related to making inaccessible data accessible should be shifted.

e-discoverycost-shiftingelectronic databackup tapesemail productiongender discriminationdiscovery disputeproportionalityRule 26Rule 68
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peter S. v. Cheryl A. S.

The Law Guardian appealed an order from Monroe County Family Court that resolved a visitation dispute by limiting the father to supervised visitation due to a finding of sexual abuse of his daughter. The court's finding relied on the children’s out-of-court statements, the mother’s observations, and her apparent lack of motive to falsify the accusation. The Appellate Court concluded that the Law Guardian failed to preserve her challenge to the court’s consideration of the children’s statements due to a lack of objection to hearsay. Additionally, the Appellate Court rejected the Law Guardian's argument regarding insufficient corroboration, stating that Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi) is not applicable to article 6 proceedings, and even if it were, the mother's observations sufficiently corroborated the children's hearsay statements. The order was unanimously affirmed without costs.

Visitation RightsChild AbuseSexual AbuseHearsayCorroborationFamily Court ActSupervised VisitationLaw GuardianAppellate ReviewFamily Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 24,636 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