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. ADJ6954999
Regular
Sep 01, 2015

VALENTIN GARCIA vs. KINGSBURG APPLE PACKERS, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this case, lien claimant Med-Legal Photocopy (MLP) sought reconsideration of a decision denying its claim for $\$ 3,827.05$ in photocopying expenses. The Appeals Board denied MLP's petition, finding that MLP failed to meet its burden of proof. Specifically, MLP did not demonstrate that a contested claim existed when the expenses were incurred, nor that they were necessary to prove or disprove such a claim. Therefore, the Board affirmed the denial of the lien.

References
3
Case No. ADJ7375307
Regular
Dec 06, 2016

REYNA VALDEZ vs. FULL CIRCLE DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the lower court's decision denying a lien claimant's claim for photocopy services. The Board found insufficient evidence to determine if a "contested claim" existed at the time the services were rendered, which is a prerequisite for reimbursement of medical-legal expenses. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision on the existence of a contested claim. The Board clarified that obtaining records via subpoena is permissible and that photocopy fees are considered recoverable medical-legal expenses if a contested claim is established.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReyna ValdezFull Circle DairyZenith Insurance CompanyADJ7375307Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationMed Legal Photocopylien claimantFindings and Ordercontested claim
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Relativity Fashion, LLC

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a motion for attorneys' fees and expenses filed by Relativity Media, LLC (and its affiliates RML Distribution Domestic, LLC, Armored Car Productions, LLC, and DR Productions, LLC, collectively 'Relativity') and Mr. Ryan Kavanaugh against Netflix, Inc. The dispute arose from Netflix's refusal to execute 'Date Extension Amendments' related to a License Agreement, prompting Relativity to seek relief under Section 1142 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court previously ruled that Netflix was barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel from asserting its claimed contractual rights to distribute films before theatrical release. In this opinion, the Court determined that Relativity was the 'prevailing party' under California Civil Code Section 1717 and the License Agreement's fee provision. Consequently, Relativity is entitled to reimbursement for its own reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. However, the Court denied Mr. Kavanaugh's request for reimbursement of his counsel's fees and expenses, concluding that he was not a party to the License Agreement and did not meet the exceptions for non-signatories to recover fees. The Court awarded Relativity $818,547.48, comprising $795,732.50 in attorneys’ fees and $22,814.98 in litigation expenses, against Netflix.

Attorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesContract LawCalifornia Civil Code Section 1717Bankruptcy Code Section 1142Prevailing PartyLodestar MethodHourly RatesJudicial EstoppelRes Judicata
References
85
Case No. ADJ8577504
Regular
Jun 23, 2015

JESUS PONCE vs. LAFAYETTE TEXTILES, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant, Western Imaging Services, seeking reimbursement for photocopying expenses. The Appeals Board clarified that Western did not need to prove applicant sustained an industrial injury to recover its lien. However, Western must demonstrate that a contested claim existed when the expenses were incurred, that they were for proving or disproving that claim, and that they were reasonable and necessary. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and remanded the case to determine which specific expenses meet these criteria.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantMedical-Legal ExpenseContested ClaimBurden of ProofIndustrial InjuryReconsiderationReasonable and Necessary ExpensesSubpoenaed RecordsPhotocopied Records
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Golden Distributors, Ltd.

The debtor, Golden Distributors, Ltd., in a Chapter 11 case, moved to classify employee benefit claims, while several unions cross-moved for full administrative expense treatment. The court addressed the priority of sick leave, personal holidays, vacation, and severance pay for both union and non-union former employees. It concluded that most of these claims, including all severance pay and union vacation pay, qualify as administrative expenses or similar high-priority claims. However, all such employee claims were deemed subordinate to the super-priority secured liens held by the post-petition lenders.

BankruptcyChapter 11Administrative ExpensesEmployee BenefitsSeverance PayVacation PayCollective Bargaining AgreementSuper-priority LiensDebtor in PossessionUnions
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Terranova v. Lehr Construction Co.

In 2009, Claimant sustained a right knee injury at work, leading to workers' compensation benefits and a 10% schedule loss of use award. Concurrently, Claimant settled a third-party action for $173,500. A dispute arose concerning the carrier's credit and the apportionment of litigation expenses from the third-party settlement, specifically whether Burns v Varriale or Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund applied to a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that Matter of Kelly controlled, denying Claimant ongoing payments for litigation expenses. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that for schedule loss of use awards, future benefits are ascertainable, making Matter of Kelly applicable.

Schedule Loss of UseThird-Party SettlementWorkers’ Compensation BenefitsLitigation ExpensesCarrier CreditApportionment of Counsel FeesFuture BenefitsIndependent Medical ExaminationOrthopedist ReportCourt of Appeals Precedent
References
5
Case No. ADJ7890528
Regular
Dec 09, 2013

RUBEN CRUZ vs. PACIFIC RIDGE FARMS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision that allowed a lien for photocopy services. The defendant argued the lien for duplicating already-obtained medical records was improperly allowed. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded its prior order, and returned the matter to the trial level. This was because the Board found the photocopy expenses were not reasonably and necessarily incurred when the injury was admitted and the records were duplicative.

Med-Legal Photocopylien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderrescindedmedical recordsLabor Code Section 4603.2medical-legal costsreimbursementapplicant's injury
References
5
Case No. ADJ1385972 (LBO 0378379)
Regular
Aug 01, 2013

AMELIA CUEVAS vs. IMAGINE FULFILLMENT SERVICES, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an administrative law judge's order awarding costs to a lien claimant for photocopying services. The Board held that medical-legal expenses, including photocopying, are not recoverable under Labor Code section 5811. The original order was also deemed vague and potentially void for not clearly defining the parties' rights and obligations. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code §5811Petition for CostsLien ClaimantPhotocopying ServicesMedical-Legal ExpensesReconsiderationWCJ OrderRescindedTimeliness of Petition
References
6
Case No. ADJ9835514
Regular
Nov 07, 2017

CARLO MAGNO vs. AMERICAN SOLAR DIRECT, INC., CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant, Med-Legal Photocopy, seeking reimbursement for costs incurred in obtaining medical records. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The Board found the claimant failed to meet its burden of proof to establish that the expenses were incurred for a "contested claim" as required by Labor Code section 4620. Therefore, the defendant is not liable for the lien claimant's expenses related to obtaining these records.

Med-Legal PhotocopyPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardEDEXSCPMG/KFHGreen River Family DentistryRancho Physical TherapyBerkshire HathawayAmerican Solar DirectDr. Prescott
References
4
Case No. ADJ8248765
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

CARELA MURGUIA vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a decision that disallowed a lien for photocopying services. The WCAB found that a contested claim existed at the time the services were rendered, satisfying a key requirement for medical-legal expenses. The Board further determined that the applicant's attorney acted reasonably in subpoenaing records, as the reasonableness of the expense is judged at the time incurred, not by the outcome of the subpoena. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the prior order and returned the matter for further proceedings to determine the lien amount.

Lien claimantMedical-legal expensesContested claimLabor Code section 4620Labor Code section 4621SubpoenaPhotocopying servicesWCJReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 751 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