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. 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 The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the matter for further proceedings.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. ADJ224608 (SAL 0112660)
Regular
Mar 09, 2017

ANA RUTH FLORES vs. CHUALAR CANYON RANCH SUPPY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns the recovery of vocational rehabilitation (VR) expert costs for applicant Ana Ruth Flores. The defendant disputed these costs, arguing they were unreasonable, unnecessary, and lacked the potential to affect the applicant's permanent disability rating, especially since a psychiatric injury component was later barred. The Appeals Board found that the VR evaluation costs were allowable under Labor Code section 5811 as they had the potential to influence the applicant's permanent disability rating. The Board rescinded the original order, allowing VR costs except for negotiation fees, and deferred penalty issues.

Vocational rehabilitationVR evaluation costsmedical-legal costsunreasonable and necessarypenaltiesinterestpermanent disability ratingLabor Code section 3208.3Labor Code section 5811Labor Code section 4621
References
Case No. ADJ4579659
Significant
Sep 09, 2008

Dee Anne Ramirez, Applicant vs. Drive Financial Services, One Beacon Insurance Co.

The Appeals Board, in an en banc decision, holds that penalties under Labor Code section 5814(a) are discretionary, successive penalties are permissible under specific circumstances, and attorney's fees under section 5814.5 apply to private employers for unreasonable delays occurring after January 1, 2003, regardless of the injury date.

WCABLabor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5penaltyattorney feesen bancreconsiderationdiscretionary penaltysuccessive penaltyunreasonable delay
References
Case No. ADJ8983986
Regular
Mar 19, 2018

JUN PAE vs. LOVE CULTURE, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the WCJ failed to address the lien claimant's request for sanctions, costs, penalties, and interest. While the WCJ correctly determined the lien claimant was adequately reimbursed for translation services and disallowed the remaining lien balance, these additional claims were unaddressed. The Board affirmed the original award regarding reimbursement but deferred the sanctions and costs issue for further proceedings. This will allow for evidence to be presented and a decision to be rendered on those specific claims.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeSanctionsCostsPenaltiesInterestTranslation ServicesBad Faith
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. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
Case No. ADJ2353136 (STK 0213635)
Regular
Dec 19, 2016

AHMED SHOAIB vs. CAMBELL SOUP COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over the payment of a workers' compensation settlement. The applicant, Ahmed Shoaib, settled a discrimination claim against Campbell Soup Company for $55,000. Campbell Soup unilaterally withheld over $19,000 from the applicant's share of the settlement for alleged payroll taxes. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Campbell Soup's petition for reconsideration, finding that the company unreasonably delayed payment by taking a unilateral credit. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision and the awarded 25% penalty for the delayed payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and AwardLabor Code Section 132aAmended Petition for PenaltyDelayed PaymentLabor Code Section 5814Labor Code Section 5814.5Contract EnforcementUnilateral Credit
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. POM 0261983
Regular
Feb 08, 2009

SARA LARA vs. POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE/BROADSPIRE

The lien claimant, Premier Outpatient Surgery Center, sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision that reduced their billed costs for applicant's medical treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the judge's finding that the billed costs were unreasonable and that the lien claimant failed to present a persuasive case supporting their charges. The Board also found no evidence of a violation of Labor Code section 4603.2 regarding timely reimbursement.

Kunz v. PattersonWCABLien claimantAmended Findings of FactReasonable and necessary costsBilled costs unreasonableStipulations with Request for AwardIndustrial injuryBilateral upper extremitiesNeck injury
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,344 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