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. 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. ADJ7613459
Significant
May 07, 2013

Luis Martinez, Applicant vs. Ana Terrazas, Allstate Insurance Co., administered by Specialty Risk Services

The Appeals Board holds that medical-legal expenses cannot be filed as a petition for costs under Labor Code section 5811 to avoid lien activation fees, but allows for the reinstatement of liens that were withdrawn for this purpose prior to the decision if they have not been formally dismissed.

SB 863lien activation feemedical-legal expensespetition for costsLabor Code section 5811Labor Code section 4903.06en banc decisionreinstatement principlelitigation costsstatutory schemes
References
Case No. AHM 0097527
Regular
Jun 04, 2008

WILLIAM DAVID SCOTT vs. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Following a remand from the Court of Appeal for an award of attorney's fees and costs, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant's counsel $2,500 for appellate attorney's fees and $421.68 for costs. The Board found the requested 25 hours excessive for an answer of average complexity, awarding fees based on 10 hours at $250/hour, considering the attorney's experience, the results obtained, and the case's limited complexity. Costs for printing were allowed upon review of provided receipts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesCostsLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly RateCase ComplexityItemization
References
Case No. ADJ11059431; ADJ11059347
Regular
Dec 02, 2020

PATRICIA DE LA RIVA vs. HORIZON PERSONNEL SERVICES, THE HARTFORD

This case involves a cost petitioner's request for reconsideration of a prior WCJ order. The WCJ had found that the cost petitioner waived further claims by not objecting to an order allowing only a portion of their requested costs. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This was because the WCJ failed to rule on all issues presented in the cost petitioner's petition, specifically penalties, interest, attorney's fees, and sanctions, as required by Labor Code § 5313.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Allowing CostsPetition for CostsLabor Code § 5313WCJFindings of Fact and OrderAOE/COEHorizon Personnel ServicesThe Hartford
References
Case No. ADJ422285
Regular
Jun 01, 2010

KATHLEEN JONES vs. PALMDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT; TIG administered by RISK ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT

The defendant sought removal of an order requiring reimbursement for deposition costs, arguing procedural error and that a less costly method was available. The Appeals Board denied removal, deeming the order a final decision on costs subject to reconsideration. The Board granted reconsideration on its own motion due to the order's non-compliance with procedural rules for "walk-through" orders. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for removalOrder for costsDeposition costsSupplemental reportDue processGood cause objectionReconsideration on Board motionFinal orderSubstantive rightLiability
References
Showing 1-10 of 637 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