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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Deka Realty Corp.

This appellate opinion addresses the proper assessment of contempt sanctions and civil penalties against Deka Realty Corp. for numerous housing code violations. The court clarifies that civil contempt fines must compensate aggrieved tenants for actual damages, not be based on a multiplication of statutory maximums per violation, and remits for a damages hearing. Criminal contempt fines, intended to vindicate court authority, were reduced to $1,000 per contemnor. The court also held that while serious monetary sanctions can trigger a constitutional right to a jury trial, Deka Realty Corp. waived this right by failing to make a timely demand. Civil penalties against Deka were also reduced.

Contempt sanctionsCivil penaltiesHousing code violationsJury trial rightJudiciary LawCivil contempt finesCriminal contempt finesConsent decreeLandlord-tenant disputeDue process
References
56
Case No. ADJ7730252
Regular
Jul 22, 2015

MARIA OLVERA vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reconsidered sanctions imposed by a WCJ against applicant's attorney and representative for failing to disclose a cumulative trauma claim and proceeding to trial without a legal basis. The Board rescinded one sanction for failure to disclose, finding no legal mandate for immediate disclosure, and clarified which parties were sanctioned for proceeding to trial without basis, reducing the penalties. The Board affirmed the award of costs to the defendant for defending against these actions. One Commissioner dissented, believing the conduct was not sanctionable given the evidence presented by applicant's representatives.

WCABSanctionsCostsLabor Code 5813Rule 10561Hearing RepresentativeCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryDue ProcessBill of Particulars
References
1
Case No. ADJ3415468 (AHM 0146168)
Regular
Feb 05, 2013

ZOBEIDA ALVA vs. OXFORD VILLA, FIRSTCOMP OMAHA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted removal and imposed a $750 sanction on lien claimant SAI Professional Services and its representative, Betty Rezmer, for filing a frivolous Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found the petition contained willful misrepresentations of the record and disregarded evidence that contradicted the lien claimant's claims. After failing to respond to the Board's notice of intent to sanction, the $750 penalty is now officially assessed and must be paid to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Rule 10561Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFrivolous ActionWillful MisrepresentationsFailure to Appear
References
0
Case No. ADJ7703832
Regular
Nov 16, 2012

WAI SAM LEONG vs. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FULLERTON, LEGALLY UNINSURED, Administered By SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim where the applicant alleged a psyche injury. The defendant's attorney, John Langevin of Floyd, Skeren & Kelly, LLP, engaged in bad-faith tactics by improperly contacting a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) and filing a frivolous Petition for Removal. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and intends to impose sanctions, including significant attorney's fees and penalties to the General Fund, against Langevin and his firm for these actions. The WCAB found the defendant's position regarding a clerical error in the QME request to be without merit and solely intended to cause delay.

WCABReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code 5813WCAB Rule 10561Petition for RemovalPanel QMEClerical ErrorBad Faith TacticsFrivolous
References
0
Case No. ADJ3937063 (AHM 0137186)
Regular
Feb 03, 2012

ERIC BENNETT vs. TRADER JOE'S, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case concerns Trader Joe's unreasonable delay in paying a stipulated workers' compensation award by improperly deducting attorney's fees. The Appeals Board denied Trader Joe's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding penalties and attorney's fees for the delay. Furthermore, the Board initiated sanctions against Trader Joe's and its attorneys for filing a petition deemed misleading and without merit. Sanctions will be imposed unless good cause is shown within 15 days.

Stipulated Awardunreasonable delaypermanent disabilityattorney's feesLabor Code section 5814attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5814.5attorney costs under Labor Code section 5811bad-faith actionsfrivolous tacticsmisleading petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ3487625 (VNO 0525644)
Regular
Oct 16, 2017

TERESA SALAZAR vs. SENIOR SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC., THE HARTFORD

This case concerns a worker's claim for sanctions and penalties against her employer and their insurer. The applicant contended that the defendant's failure to provide written pre-authorization to her chosen physician constituted a denial of medical treatment, warranting penalties. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found no evidence of bad faith or unreasonable delay. Crucially, there was no statutory or case law requirement for the defendant to issue such a pre-authorization letter to the designated primary treating physician. Therefore, the Board affirmed the decision denying the applicant's claim for sanctions and penalties.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJLabor Code section 5813Labor Code section 5814sanctionspenaltiespre-authorizationmedical treatmentprimary treating physician (PTP)
References
2
Case No. ADJ332528 (AHM 0104042)
Regular
Mar 22, 2011

ERNEST DANIELS vs. PIEDMONT ENGINEERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board imposed a $250.00 sanction against the State Compensation Insurance Fund and its attorney, Maria Frias Callejas. This sanction was issued due to their failure to respond to a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions and their violation of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure. No timely objection demonstrating good cause was filed. Consequently, they are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the sanction to the Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsState Compensation Insurance FundMaria Frias CallejasRules of Practice and ProcedureNotice of IntentionGood CauseTimely ResponseJoint and Several LiabilityAttorney for Defendant
References
0
Case No. ADJ6620175
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

CAMELLA MORA GONZALEZ vs. KAY'S CLEANERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is imposing sanctions under Labor Code § 5813 against Innovative Medical Management and lien claimant Priority Care Medical Transportation for $1,000.00, jointly and severally. Additionally, sanctions of $250.00 are imposed against Louis Heard, the lien claimant's hearing representative. These sanctions were ordered due to a failure to object to a previously issued notice of intention, following the Board's affirmation of the dismissal of the lien claim. The sanctioned parties did not provide any written objection demonstrating good cause to avoid the sanctions.

Labor Code § 5813SanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimDismissalPriority Care Medical TransportationInnovative Medical ManagementLouis HeardWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardHearing Representative
References
0
Case No. ADJ962796 (ANA 0403408)
Regular
Aug 26, 2015

JAMES RODNEY RICHARD vs. HOUSTON ASTROS

Attorneys for both the applicant and defendant were sanctioned $50.00 each for failing to follow the Board's explicit instructions. The attorneys improperly filed a stipulation for appellate attorney's fees with a district office instead of the Office of Commissioners. This oversight led to an inaccurate award and necessitated further Board action. While acknowledging the attorneys' apologies and assurances of future compliance, the Board imposed the minimal sanction due to the clear disregard of its directives.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsAppellate Attorney's FeesStipulationNotice of IntentionDistrict OfficeOffice of CommissionersLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Amended Award
References
0
Case No. ADJ7199989, ADJ7118722
Regular
Feb 13, 2012

JUAN CERVANTES vs. WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER, HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) sanctioned applicant's attorney, Sunil Shaw, for $\$250.00$. This sanction was imposed for violating Appeals Board Rule 10842, related to proceedings before the Board. The WCAB granted removal on its own motion and issued a notice of intention to sanction, to which no objection was received. The sanction amount has been paid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionLabor Code Section 5310Appeals Board Rule 10842Notice of Intention to SanctionApplicant's AttorneyShow Good CauseDecision After RemovalWestern Medical Center
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,143 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