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. ADJ15495483; ADJ15494417
Regular
Sep 30, 2025

GLADYS SERRANO vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The cost petitioner, Platinum Copy, sought reconsideration of a WCJ's 'Joint Findings, Order, and Opinion on Decision' that denied their petitions for medical-legal costs and sanctions. The WCJ had granted defendant's motion to quash subpoenas and found Platinum Copy failed to prove their entitlement to recover costs due to unreasonableness and lack of necessity of the services. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, concluding that Platinum Copy failed to establish the reasonableness and necessity of the incurred services, including improper service of subpoenas, thus denying the Petition for Reconsideration.

WCABPlatinum CopyPetition for ReconsiderationMotion to QuashMedical Legal CostsSubpoenasContested ClaimLabor Code Section 5909Colamonico v. Secure TransportationAD Rule 9982
References
Case No. ADJ9116549
Regular
Mar 13, 2020

EMMA MEDINA vs. SUNRISE RESTAURANT, LLC, DENNY'S RESTAURANT, CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CHUBB INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case concerns the reimbursement for lien claimant Preferred Scan's copy services. The Board granted reconsideration to clarify what constitutes medical-legal expenses and the reasonable value of copy services. The Appeals Board rescinded the original award and returned the matter for further proceedings, finding that certain copy services for medical records were properly considered medical-legal expenses. However, the reasoning for doubling the copy service fee schedule was insufficient and requires further development at the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantCopy ServicesMedical-Legal ServicesCopy Service Fee ScheduleLabor CodeSubpoena Duces TecumExplanation of ReviewCompromise and Release
References
Case No. ADJ366995
Regular
Jan 31, 2011

MARVIN BRANSCOMB (Deceased), MABLE JEAN BRANSCOMB (Widow) vs. CITY OF COMPTON, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Compton's petition for a stay of a $\$250,000$ death benefit award. The award was for prostate cancer, determined to be work-related for a deceased deputy sheriff. The Board explained that it can effectively stay execution by withholding the certified copy of the award, which is its standard practice during pending appellate review. Therefore, a separate stay order is unnecessary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for StayFindings and AwardDeath BenefitsPetition for Writ of ReviewReconsiderationCertified Copy of AwardWithholding Certified CopyStay of ExecutionLabor Code § 5808
References
Case No. ADJ6502736
Regular
Nov 21, 2011

JUAN BARCENAS vs. THE BEST MASTER ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, New Age Imaging Copy Service

This order imposes a $500.00 sanction against lien claimant New Age Imaging Copy Service for filing a frivolous petition for reconsideration without justification. The Board previously provided notice of its intent to sanction and allowed an opportunity to object, which the lien claimant failed to do. The sanction is for violating Labor Code section 5813 and WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2) regarding frivolous filings. Payment is due within twenty days to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board for transmittal to the General Fund.

Frivolous petitionSanctionLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561(b)(2)Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationNotice of intentionGood causeOpinion and Order Dismissing Petition for ReconsiderationGranting Removal
References
Case No. ADJ8092562 MF ADJ8222911
Regular
Feb 22, 2016

JULIA OZUNA vs. KERN COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's decision regarding lien claimant Associated Reproduction Services, Inc. (ARS). The Board found that ARS was acting as an agent for the applicant's attorney, making its copying services potentially compensable medical-legal expenses. Crucially, ARS is not required to prove that every copied record was specifically relied upon by the AME, only that the copying was reasonably undertaken to discover relevant information. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine a reasonable fee for ARS's services and address the claim for interest.

Associated Reproduction ServicesAMEDr. Roger Sohnlien claimantcopy service feesmedical-legal expensesLabor Code §4620(a)Labor Code §4622interestfee schedule
References
Case No. SDO 0327934
Regular
Feb 11, 2008

ROLLIE BRUBAKER vs. CONVERA, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a prior order. While generally affirming the original decision, the Board added a finding allowing the lien claimant reimbursement for copying charges, plus penalty and interest under Labor Code section 4603.2. The Board also amended the payment orders to reflect this additional award for the report copy.

WCABReconsiderationLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code section 4603.2Labor Code section 5813PenaltyInterestCopying FeeReport Preparation
References
Case No. ADJ10745219
Regular
Jun 07, 2017

SUSHILA CHAND vs. MACY'S, MACY'S COPRORATE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Macy's petition for removal of an order denying their motion to quash a subpoena. Macy's argued the subpoena was improper because the applicant failed to request records directly from them first, violating a specific rule. The Board found Macy's claim of irreparable harm unconvincing, explaining the cited rule pertains to payment for copying services, not the validity of the subpoena itself. The proper recourse for Macy's alleged violation is to object to copying bills, not to quash the subpoena.

Removal petitionQuash subpoena duces tecumAdministrative Director Rule 9982WCAB Rule 10848Injured workerEmployer recordsMedical recordsCopying servicesIrreparable harmWCJ report and recommendation
References
Case No. ADJ9314377
Regular
Dec 07, 2020

LORI NORTON vs. WESTERN MEDICAL CENTER, SENTRY STEVENS POINT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the WCJ's award to a copy service lien claimant. The Board found that while a contested claim existed and most services were reasonable and necessary, the WCJ erred by not evaluating the reasonable value of the copying services as required by Labor Code section 4622. The Board also questioned whether the lien claimant properly objected to the defendant's explanations of review within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the Findings and Award were rescinded and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on these issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardLien ClaimantCopy ServicesLabor Code Section 4620Labor Code Section 4622Subpoena Duces TecumReasonable ValueExplanation of Review
References
Case No. ADJ7781702; ADJ7781654; ADJ7781697
Regular
Sep 22, 2022

ANA ALVARADO vs. YUM YUM DONUT SHOPS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Tower Imaging DBA Tower Copy sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision finding their petition for medical-legal expenses untimely and the services not reasonably incurred. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review the matter. Subsequently, Tower Copy and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company entered into a stipulation to settle the disputed $7,539.82 balance for $3,000.00. The WCAB approved this stipulation, rescinding the prior findings and ordering the settlement as full and final resolution of the dispute.

WCABTower ImagingTower Copymedical-legal expensesPetition for Determination of Non-IBR Medical Legal Disputeuntimely filedreasonablyactuallyand necessarily incurredStipulation
References
Case No. ADJ11046200
Regular
Oct 29, 2018

SHAWN JENEI vs. CASA LOMA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Med-Legal Photocopy, seeking payment for copying services related to an applicant's workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration. The primary issue was whether the lien claimant's services were compensable under Labor Code section 5307.9, which mandates a 30-day waiting period after an employer/insurer request for records before payment for copying services is allowed. The Board found that the applicant's attorney did not wait the requisite 30 days before issuing subpoenas for the records, thus disallowing the lien.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDMed-Legal PhotocopyPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJLabor Code § 5307.9subpoenasmedical recordscustodian of recordsclaims administrator
References
Showing 1-10 of 120 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