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. 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. 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. ADJ10146503
Regular
Oct 20, 2018

ALAN KOON vs. RZ PLUMBING, INC.; AMTRUST

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to applicant's attorney, Robert Rassp, pursuant to Labor Code section 5801. The Second District Court of Appeals had previously remanded the matter for this purpose. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed Rassp's request for 13.25 hours of work and $865.59 in costs, totaling $6,165.59. The Board disallowed two hours of travel time due to lack of clarity on the reasonableness and nature of the activity. Ultimately, the Board awarded Rassp a total of $5,365.59 in attorney's fees and costs.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feescostsremandWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardbill of particularsreasonableness of feestravel time deductionawarded amounttrial level return
References
Case No. ADJ1839916 (LBO 0396758)
Regular
Apr 19, 2016

JORGE LOPEZ vs. FASHION AVENUE INC., dba INTERNATIONAL GRAPHICS; FIRST COMP OMAHA, MARKEL INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to Ramirez & Associates regarding sanctions imposed by an administrative law judge. While affirming the jurisdiction to sanction Ramirez & Associates, the Board reduced the awarded costs from $1,376.00 to $1,152.00 due to excessive attorney time billed for travel and appearance at a lien conference. The Board rescinded the original order and substituted it with a new one imposing $1,000.00 in sanctions and the reduced costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsGood CauseJurisdictionDue Process ViolationExcessive SanctionsAttorney FeesCosts
References
Case No. ADJ7437756
Regular
Mar 23, 2012

Antonio Parvool vs. TONY'S FOOD SERVICE, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY OF CONNECTICUT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that applicant Antonio Parvool sustained an industrial injury while employed as a chef's assistant and traveling for his employer. The Board overturned the original finding that the applicant's dive into a pool at an employer-provided hotel was not work-related, applying the "commercial traveler rule." This rule presumes an employee is acting within the scope of employment during business travel, including activities reasonably necessary for comfort. The Board clarified that Labor Code section 3600(a)(9) regarding recreational activities does not apply to commercial travelers.

Commercial traveler ruleIndustrial injuryCourse of employmentReconsiderationFindings and OrdersLabor Code section 3600(a)(9)Reasonable expectancyImpliedly requiredWCJOff-duty recreational activity
References
Case No. FRE 0191303
Regular
Nov 27, 2007

NORMA OZUNA vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a finding that the defendant was not responsible for the costs of the applicant's vocational expert. The WCAB remanded the case to the trial level for further analysis, instructing the judge to consider the factors outlined in *Costa v. Hardy Diagnostic* regarding the reasonableness and necessity of expert costs. The decision does not comment on the merits of whether the costs are ultimately reimbursable.

Vocational expert costsLabor Code section 5811Costa v. Hardy DiagnosticPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleAppeals Board en banccumulative traumaHepatitis Ccorrectional officeragreed medical evaluatorfindings of fact and award
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. ADJ9613492
Regular
Sep 05, 2025

BRIGITTE PAIGE vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Brigitte Paige, an office assistant, sustained injuries to her lumbar spine, hip, and psyche in 2014 while employed by the County of Riverside. San Diego Imaging, Inc., doing business as California Imaging Solutions, sought reimbursement for medical-legal services which the Workers' Compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) denied in Findings and Orders (F&O) on December 21, 2020. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and found that the defendant's objection to an earlier Order Allowing Costs was untimely, making that order effective on April 2, 2019. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's F&O, substituted a new F&O finding the defendant liable for payment based on the April 2, 2019 order, and deferred the issue of costs and sanctions to the trial level.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrdersCost PetitionerMedical-Legal ServicesSubpoena Duces TecumCompromise and ReleaseStipulations with Request for AwardOrder Allowing CostsTimeliness of Objection
References
Case No. ADJ3136701 (SFO 0461921)
Regular
Jun 01, 2012

HORST ROBERT STAHL vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that their lien was barred and ordering reimbursement of defendant's travel costs. The Board also initiated removal and intended to impose sanctions of $500 on the lien claimant's representative, Mark Gangl, and Recovery Resources, Inc. This action is due to material misrepresentations in their petition regarding the trial proceedings and costs. Sanctions are proposed for filing a petition that contained substantially misleading and factually unsupported statements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatute of LimitationsLachesLien ClaimantsTravel CostsLabor Code § 5813SanctionsBad Faith ActionsFrivolous Tactics
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,382 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