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. ADJ3347998 (LAO 0774299)
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

JOSEPH JONES vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's finding of employment for applicant Joseph Jones. Defendant County of Los Angeles argued applicant was not a volunteer, thus not an employee. The Board found applicant's testimony indicated he felt compelled to work as a trustee due to threat of transfer, not voluntary agreement, negating an employment relationship under Labor Code section 3351. Furthermore, applicant did not qualify under Penal Code section 4017 as he was awaiting trial and not engaged in fire suppression activities.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoseph JonesCounty of Los AngelesSheriff's DepartmentTristarFindings of FactWorkers' Compensation Judge (WCJ)Employment RelationshipVolunteerInmate
References
2
Case No. ADJ6822166
Regular
May 27, 2011

Jackie Thompson vs. Los Angeles Unified School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior finding that a school district police officer was entitled to a cancer presumption for his prostate cancer. The Board found that while the applicant was a peace officer, his authority was defined by Penal Code section 830.32, not section 830.1 as initially determined. Because Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption specifically lists peace officers defined under certain Penal Code sections and does not include those under 830.32, the applicant is not entitled to the presumption.

Labor Code 3212.1Penal Code 830.32Peace OfficerSchool District Police OfficerCancer PresumptionIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationWCABLaw Enforcement ActivitiesWilliam Dallas Jones Cancer Presumption Act
References
3
Case No. ADJ2852962 (SFO 0492897)
Regular
Jul 07, 2011

Francisco Torres vs. Foundation & Earth Retaining Systems, California Insurance Company

The Court of Appeal denied the defendant's petition for writ of review and found no reasonable basis for it. Consequently, the case was remanded for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to award supplemental attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801. The WCAB awarded $7,500 in attorney's fees, finding the requested amount excessive and the submitted time records insufficiently detailed despite the penal nature of the statute. The WCAB also awarded $229.96 in appellate costs.

Supplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewReasonable Attorney's FeeAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811No Reasonable BasisPenal AspectUnverified Time RecordsExcessive Fees
References
1
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haddad v. City of Albany

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their application, which combined a CPLR article 78 proceeding and an action for declaratory judgment. The application challenged the respondent's denial of a request to rescind waste removal violation bills issued by the Department of General Services (DGS) of the City of Albany. The Supreme Court had found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that claims regarding preemption of local waste ordinances by state penal law were without merit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) administratively reviewed the violations, reversing some charges and upholding others. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that a violation of the City of Albany's waste code was not a criminal violation under Penal Law § 55.10, and that the petitioner was indeed required to exhaust administrative remedies for their constitutional claims, as these claims implicated specific aspects of the administrative proceeding rather than the administrative scheme itself.

WasteManagementAdministrativeLawMunicipalCodePenalLawExhaustionOfRemediesDeclaratoryJudgmentAppellateReviewEnvironmentalViolationsPublicHealthPropertyMaintenance
References
10
Case No. ADJ8887982
Regular
Aug 29, 2014

ALVARO VIRGEN vs. COSTA VIEW FARM 2, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves sanctions imposed on attorney Kyle K. Neilsen under Labor Code § 5813. Neilsen's apology for contemptuous remarks about a Workers' Compensation Judge was deemed insufficient as he continued to justify his behavior. The Board found his attempt to excuse his actions indicated a lack of appreciation for the severity of his offense. Consequently, Neilsen was ordered to pay $950.00 in sanctions to the General Fund.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsLabor Code § 5813WCJ EllisContemptuous statementsJustificationFrustrationPleadingTravelOrange County
References
0
Case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Regular
Jan 07, 2011

JOYCE GUZMAN vs. MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant, Joyce Guzman. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Appeals Board's decision and the Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for review. Following this, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur awarding costs to the applicant under Labor Code section 5811. The applicant requested $2,686.60 in appellate costs, which the Appeals Board found reasonable and awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMilpitas Unified School DistrictKeenan & AssociatesAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Court of AppealRemittiturPetition for ReviewItemized RequestReasonable Costs
References
3
Case No. ADJ4655433 (STK 0183897) ADJ4135432 (STK 0183898)
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

CARMELA GARCIA vs. E & J GALLO WINERY, P.S.I.

This case concerns a request for supplemental attorney's fees following an unsuccessful petition for writ of review by defendant E & J Gallo Winery. The Court of Appeal previously granted the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801 and remanded the matter. The applicant's attorney requested $3,150.00 for services related to answering the petition, which the defendant did not dispute in amount, only in principle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the requested amount reasonable and issued a supplemental award of $3,150.00 in attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feessupplemental awardpetition for writ of reviewremittiturreasonable basisapplicantdefendantE & J Gallo Winery
References
1
Case No. AHM 108812 AHM 108813 AHM 108814
Regular
Nov 06, 2007

OLIVIA ZAVALA vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

This case involves an award of attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following a successful defense against the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the Board to determine reasonable attorney's fees for the applicant's counsel's services. The applicant's attorney requested $5,171.89, but both parties ultimately stipulated to a total of $5,000.00 for attorney's fees and appellate costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeeLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealStipulationAppellate CostsMetropolitan Water DistrictReasonable Attorney's Fees
References
1
Case No. MON 0331606
Regular
Aug 08, 2007

DEAN HARVEY vs. PES PAYROLL

This case involves a request for additional attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code § 5801 following a successful appeal by the applicant. The Appeals Board awarded applicant's attorney $3,500 in fees and $96.98 in costs, finding the requested hours for drafting the response excessive and disallowing paralegal fees. The Board determined the case was of average complexity and set the hourly rate at $250 for a certified specialist.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealAppeals BoardSupplemental AwardReasonable FeesHourly RateCertified SpecialistAppellate Complexity
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,749 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