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. 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. ADJ4024660 (LAO 0887729)
Regular
Feb 03, 2017

ALFREDO COLLAZO vs. MECA NAG CORPORATION, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case to the trial level for a new decision. The WCJ erred in determining the lien claimant's entitlement to payment solely on a multiplier of Medicare rates, rather than a reasonable cost basis. The Board clarified that while the facility's charges are not subject to the Official Medical Fee Schedule, their entitlement must be based on their actual costs plus a reasonable profit. Therefore, further proceedings are required to properly assess the reasonable cost basis for the services rendered.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderLien ClaimantReasonable Cost BasisMedicare ReimbursementOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLong Term Care HospitalKunz StudyTapia
References
Case No. GRO 0031810
Significant
Nov 13, 2007

JOEY M. COSTA, Applicant vs. HARDY DIAGNOSTIC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board affirmed its prior holding that parties may present rebuttal evidence to a permanent disability rating, and the costs of such evidence may be allowable under Labor Code section 5811 if reasonable and necessary. The case was returned to the trial level to determine the specific reimbursement for the vocational expert's costs.

PDRSSB 899rebuttal evidencevocational rehabilitation consultantexpert witness feesSection 5811medical-legal costsLabor Code Section 4660permanent disability ratingtestimony
References
Case No. GRO 0031810
En Banc
Nov 13, 2007

Joey M. Costa vs. Hardy Diagnostic, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, holding that Labor Code section 4660 allows parties to present rebuttal evidence to a permanent disability rating under the new PDRS, and the reasonable and necessary costs for such evidence, like vocational expert testimony, may be allowable under section 5811.

PDRSSB 899vocational rehabilitationexpert witnessrebuttal evidencepermanent disability ratingLabor Code section 5811medical-legal costsreasonable and necessaryWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ648677
Regular
Mar 22, 2011

GUSTAVO LEON vs. SOUTH WEST MATERIAL HANDLING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant's request for reconsideration after a WCJ disallowed their expert witness fee. The Appeals Board found the WCJ erred in disallowing the lien solely because the vocational expert's report did not definitively alter the permanent disability rating. Citing *Costa v. Hardy Diagnostic*, the Board held that expert costs are reimbursable if reasonable and necessary when incurred, and potentially capable of affecting the outcome, even if unsuccessful or deemed inadmissible. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the lien claim's reasonableness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantVocational ExpertDiminished Future Earning CapacityPermanent Disability RatingCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5811Medical-Legal CostsReasonable and Necessary Costs
References
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
Case No. ADJ7483846
Regular
Feb 18, 2016

ASHLEY SWAIN vs. THE HELP GROUP, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claim for $\$3,157.15$ by DocCentral for discovery costs, specifically document photocopying services. The defendant employer challenged the lien, arguing DocCentral failed to prove compliance with legal requirements and necessity of services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the lien award, finding DocCentral acted as an agent for the applicant's attorney, thus exempting it from certain regulations. The Board also determined the services were reasonable and necessary for proving the contested claim, and the defendant waived objections by failing to raise them timely.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantDocCentralMedical-Legal CostsDiscovery CostsReasonable and NecessaryUnrebutted Prima Facie ShowingAgent or Independent ContractorBusiness and Professions CodeLabor Code Section 4620(a)
References
Case No. ADJ4399114 (POM 0281905) MF
Regular
Jun 27, 2013

RICARDO GARCIA vs. AMERICAN STAFF RESOURCES OF CALIFORNIA/TRIMCO, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for CASCADE INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB ordered SCIF to reimburse the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) $27,082.67 for costs incurred in a workers' compensation claim previously settled by SCIF. SCIF argued CIGA failed to prove reasonableness of costs and timely tendered the claim. The WCAB denied SCIF's petition, affirming the prior award, finding CIGA's expenditures were reasonable and necessary given SCIF's stipulation to the amounts spent and lack of evidence to the contrary. The Board clarified CIGA's legal status but upheld the reimbursement order based on statutory obligations and public policy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardState Compensation Insurance FundCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAreimbursementreasonable costsnecessary expenditurecompromise and releaseinvoluntary association of insurersstatutory duties
References
Case No. ADJ10933682
Regular
Dec 04, 2020

AMY LI vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by Essential Interpreting Inc. (cost petitioner) concerning its claim for deposition preparation interpreting services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that the cost petitioner failed to prove its services were reasonable and necessary under Labor Code section 5811. The defendant, Kaiser Permanente, had specifically stated in its deposition notice that it would provide the interpreter for both preparation and deposition time. Since the cost petitioner did not demonstrate why using an interpreter of its choosing was necessary over the one provided by the defendant, their claim for reimbursement was denied.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5811Labor Code Section 5813deposition preparationinterpreting servicescost petitionerapplicantdefendantWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ7761748
Regular
Nov 18, 2019

JOSE VARGAS vs. WEST COAST LIQUIDATORS, INC., dba BIG LOTS STORES, ARCH INSURANCE, Administered by SEDGWICK CMS

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the recoverability of vocational expert costs and affirmed the applicant's 50% permanent disability rating. It held that the costs of vocational expert Robert Stoneburner's reports are recoverable, even if his opinions weren't found to be substantial evidence, as long as the expert was qualified and the costs were reasonable and necessary. The WCJ's credibility determination regarding the applicant was given significant weight, and the court found no basis to reject it. The case was remanded to determine the precise amount of recoverable expert costs.

Vocational expertPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent disabilityReimbursementLabor Code section 5811Appeals BoardWCJSubstantial evidenceExpert witness
References
Showing 1-10 of 3,732 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