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

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene v. Young

This case concerns an appeal by attorneys Liza Greene and Corey Mills against a sanctions order issued by a family court. The sanctions were imposed following a 'Joint Motion to Enforce Agreed Order Lifting Stay and Request for Additional Relief' filed in bankruptcy court, primarily targeting attorney Patsy Young for allegedly hindering Ronald Repine's release from jail for child support contempt. The family court sanctioned Greene and Mills not only under Rule 13, as originally sought by Young, but also based on its inherent power, Chapter 10, Disciplinary Rules, and the Lawyers Creed, citing false statements and causing Young's arrest. The appellate court reversed and rendered, finding that the appellants lacked proper notice for sanctions under Chapter 10, inherent power, Disciplinary Rules, and the Lawyers Creed. Furthermore, the appellate court ruled that the family court lacked jurisdiction to impose Rule 13 sanctions concerning a motion filed in federal bankruptcy court.

SanctionsAttorney EthicsJurisdictionDue ProcessTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 13Bankruptcy LawFamily LawChild Support EnforcementContemptAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. ADJ9267687
Regular
Apr 02, 2019

NORMA DE JESUS ZARAGOZA vs. FRANCHISE INVESTMENT CORPORATION dba ROUND TABLE PIZZA and TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE/FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board imposed a $500 sanction against applicant's attorney, Peter T. Nguyen, and his law firm. This sanction arose from attaching over 325 pages of exhibits, many not in evidence, to a petition, violating WCAB rules regarding page limits and proper exhibit submission. The attorney's claim of inexperience was rejected, as attorneys are responsible for knowing and adhering to procedural rules, and zealous advocacy does not excuse rule violations. The Board also noted the attorney's failure to adequately cite the trial record in support of his petition.

WCABRemovalSanctionsLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561WCAB Rule 10842WCAB Rule 10845WCAB Rule 10856Petition for ReconsiderationExhibits
References
9
Case No. ADJ1773429 (MON 0282203) ADJ855226 (MON 0077581) ADJ2715287 (MON 0077582)
Regular
Nov 19, 2013

CURTIS WARD vs. TECHNICOLOR, INC.

This case involves a sanction imposed against applicant's attorney, Leatrice L. Cohen, for violating Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Rules. The Board found Ms. Cohen's attachment of over 300 pages of documents to a petition for removal to be improper, as Board Rule 10842(c) prohibits attaching exhibits. Her defense that some documents were not scanned into EAMS was rejected, as the rule prohibits attaching documents already present in the record. Consequently, the Board ordered Ms. Cohen to pay a $900 sanction to the General Fund.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRemovalSanctionLabor Code section 5813Rules of Practice and ProcedurePetition for removalAppeals Board Rule 10842(c)ExhibitsEAMSFrivolous tactics
References
0
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. 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
Case No. ADJ593283 (AHM 0117827) ADJ1747148 (AHM 0117828) ADJ196184 (AHM 0117826)
Regular
Aug 01, 2011

DEBORAH ARRIOLA-LARA vs. NORDSTROMS; Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board denied Nordstrom's Petition for Removal seeking to overturn an order allowing applicant's supplemental deposition at her attorney's office. The Board found the petition lacked merit. However, the Board sua sponte granted removal on the limited issue of sanctions against Nordstrom's counsel. This action stems from counsel's inclusion of numerous extraneous and previously filed documents in their 114-page petition, constituting a violation of procedural rules and potentially a frivolous tactic warranting sanctions.

Petition for RemovalSupplemental DepositionDue Process ViolationCode of Civil Procedure Section 2025.250Good CauseWCAB Rule 10842(c)Labor Code Section 5813Bad-Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsUnnecessary Delay
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Redd v. Fisher Controls

This order addresses Defendant Fisher Controls' motions for sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel, William S. Babcock, Jr., and for an award of attorney's fees. The Court found Babcock repeatedly violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure through baseless filings, abusive language, and a lack of reasonable inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted the motion for sanctions and ordered Babcock to pay $2700.00 to Defendant for attorneys' fees incurred. However, the Court denied Defendant's separate motion for attorney's fees under Title VII, concluding that the plaintiff's original employment discrimination action was not so frivolous as to warrant such an award. The decision took into account Babcock's limited experience and financial situation.

Rule 11 SanctionsAttorney MisconductFrivolous FilingsEmployment DiscriminationAttorneys' FeesJudicial DiscretionObjective StandardDeterrenceCompensationWestern District of Texas
References
8
Case No. ADJ7313244
Regular
Sep 14, 2012

KEVIN WRIGHT vs. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to sanction the defendant's attorneys $500 for misrepresenting the record and failing to follow procedural rules. The defendant's petition for reconsideration selectively quoted and omitted material facts from medical depositions, thereby distorting the evidence. Specifically, the defendant misrepresented a QME's opinion on industrial causation and applicant's stress levels. This failure to fairly state the evidence and provide specific record citations violates WCAB rules and warrants sanction.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5813cumulative trauma injuryindustrial causationPetition for ReconsiderationPanel QMEWCJRules of Practice and Procedurematerial misrepresentationselective quotation
References
0
Case No. ADJ8819806
Regular
Oct 30, 2015

BENJAMIN ROBLES vs. RED DIGITAL CINEMA, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CHUBB GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior ruling that disallowed a lien claim and imposed sanctions. The Board intends to impose sanctions on the lien claimant and its representatives for violating procedural rules and making unsubstantiated claims. Specifically, the Board found the lien claimant failed to properly serve opposing counsel, failed to cite legal authority or reference the record in its petition, and made misleading statements regarding the judge's conduct. The Board cautions that non-attorney representatives are held to the same professional standards as attorneys and may face further disciplinary action.

AOE/COELien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsWCJLabor Code section 5402Subrogation LienBad Faith Settlement TacticsPresumption of CompensabilityWCAB Rule 10770.1(e)
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 11,859 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