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. 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. ADJ11124817
Regular
Mar 25, 2019

GASPAR VILLEGAS vs. INTERIOR RESOURCES, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, INC.

This case involves defendant's petitions challenging an order awarding interpreter costs. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for removal and treated the January 22, 2019 petition as a timely petition for reconsideration, which was granted. The Board also dismissed the February 4, 2019 petition as untimely or moot. The January 7, 2019 order was affirmed, but amended to award $228.00 in Labor Code section 5811 costs.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportsLabor Code 5811 Costsinterpreting costsfinal ordersubstantive rightthreshold issueuntimely petitionmoot petition
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. 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
Case No. ADJ7494202
Regular
May 08, 2018

Antonio Alvarez vs. Exodus Power Sweeping/Exodus Property Maintenance, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of an order denying their petition for sanctions and costs. The denial was based on a previous en banc decision regarding medical-legal expenses, which the lien claimant argues is inapplicable. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the lien claimant's petition was for sanctions and costs incurred in preparing the petition, not for the underlying interpreting services as medical-legal costs. Therefore, the matter is returned to the WCJ for a decision on the merits of the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for SanctionsPetition for CostsLien ClaimantWCJLabor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 5811Appeals Board Rule 10451.3Medical-Legal Expenses
References
Case No. ADJ7207727
Regular
Jul 30, 2013

LEE LUJAN vs. HOME LIVING SOLUTIONS, FIRST COMP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior decision. The petition for reconsideration was filed by Lopez and Associates, a copy service, who contended their petition for costs was erroneously dismissed. The administrative law judge (ALJ) dismissed the petition based on the *Martinez* decision, which held that claims for medical-legal expenses cannot be filed as a petition for costs. The Board noted that Lopez and Associates may file a new petition under Labor Code 4622 for recovery of medical legal costs, potentially including penalties and interest.

WCABReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationMedical-legal costsLabor Code 4903.06Lien claimantCopy serviceEn Banc decisionMartinez decisionPetition for costs
References
Case No. ADJ7 170139; ADJ7176930
Regular
Mar 24, 2016

ROBERT GAONA vs. CAPITAL BUILDERS HARDWARE, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY, ENDURANCE REINSURANCE CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded its prior grant of reconsideration and denied the defendant's petition for removal and reconsideration. The defendant sought to strike the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) psychiatric report due to the applicant allegedly violating Labor Code section 4062.3 by sending a consulting physician's report to the AME without prior agreement. However, the WCAB found that the defendant waived this objection by later submitting both the consulting physician's and the AME's reports to an orthopedic AME for comment. Therefore, the WCAB affirmed the WCJ's denial of the defendant's petition to strike and request for costs and sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Joint Findings and OrdersLabor Code Section 4062.3Consulting PhysicianTainted OpinionPetition for Costs and SanctionsPetition to Strike
References
Case No. ADJ8211433
Regular
Aug 09, 2013

MARICELA TENORIO vs. DEUTSCH INDUSTRIAL, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Lopez & Associates' petition for reconsideration or removal of a WCJ's order dismissing their petition for costs. The petitioner argued the WCJ's dismissal was insufficiently explained. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning and citing that medical-legal expenses cannot be claimed via a petition for costs under Labor Code section 5811. Instead, proper procedures under Labor Code section 4622 or filing a lien must be followed.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFindings and OrderPetition for CostsMedical-legal expensesLabor Code section 5811Labor Code section 4622LienWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ14297412; ADJ14297399
Regular
Sep 29, 2025

DAVID OLIVAS vs. ECKLES AUTO BODY, INC.; PREFERRED PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The case involves David Olivas, an auto body worker, who sustained specific and cumulative trauma injuries and settled his claims via a Joint Compromise and Release. The defendant, Eckles Auto Body, Inc. and Preferred Professional Insurance Company, denied payment for interpreting services provided by Marjorie Martinez, citing untimely submission under Labor Code section 4603.2(b). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board affirmed that Labor Code section 4603.2(b) does not apply to interpreting services for Compromise and Release settlement documents, as it is limited to medical treatment-related services, concluding such services fall under a different regulatory framework for costs which lacks the 12-month billing requirement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)transmission date60-day deadlinenotice of transmissionReport and RecommendationState Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Dorsett)Labor Code section 4663
References
Case No. ADJ1153404 (BAK 0112784)
Regular
May 28, 2009

Barbara Clark vs. SAN JOAQUIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM

This case involves an applicant, Barbara Clark, whose petition for writ of review was denied by the Court of Appeal. The Court found her petition frivolous and intended to harass the defendant, San Joaquin Community Hospital (represented by Adventist Health System). Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to award attorney fees and costs against Clark. The WCAB, finding the requested fees and costs reasonable, awarded Adventist Health and its attorney $5,266.47 against Barbara Clark.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturPetition for Writ of ReviewFrivolous PetitionSanctionsAttorney FeesCostsUnreasonable DelayMeritless PetitionLabor Code Section 5801
References
Showing 1-10 of 13,673 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