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

Tokyo Electron Arizona, Inc. v. Discreet Industries Corp.

This order addresses the plaintiff Tokyo Electron Arizona's (TAZ) application for reasonable attorney's fees and costs against defendants Discreet Industries and Ovadia Meron (Discreet), pursuant to Federal Rule 37. The court determines the appropriate award by assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended, applying the lodestar method. While acknowledging the high caliber of work, the court reduced Mr. Haug's hourly rate and applied a 10% overall reduction to the billed hours to account for potential overlap. Additionally, the court found TAZ's copying and transcript costs reasonable and partially awarded costs for a computer-generated Power Point presentation. Ultimately, TAZ was awarded $55,751.79 in fees and $5386.19 in costs, totaling $61,137.98.

Attorney's FeesCostsDiscovery SanctionsFederal Rule 37Lodestar MethodHourly RatesReasonable HoursEastern District of New YorkSouthern District of New YorkWork Product Doctrine
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Battie v. Transportation Insurance Co.

Battie appealed a jury verdict in a worker's compensation case that awarded her $641.31. Her appeal focused on alleged inconsistencies in jury answers regarding the necessity of medical care and the cost of care the appellee failed to furnish, as well as the sufficiency of evidence for the cost finding. The court found that the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that medical care was reasonably required but that the expenses incurred after Dr. Geyer discharged Battie were not reasonably necessary, leading to a "zero cost" finding against the appellee. Consequently, the court found no conflict in the jury's answers and affirmed the judgment.

Worker's CompensationJury VerdictMedical CareSpecial IssuesEvidence SufficiencyMyelogramMedical ExpensesInjuryEmployer LiabilityTexas Law
References
2
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
2
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
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baird v. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

Plaintiffs Rachel M. Baird and Bonnie Porter sued their former employer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, alleging gender discrimination for being placed on a 'non-partnership track' while men were on a 'partnership track.' They initially sought $1.25 million but accepted Rule 68 offers of judgment for $37,500 each, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The court found them 'prevailing parties' but significantly reduced their requested attorneys' fees of $191,048.33 to $54,723.93, and costs to $7,506.23. This reduction was due to their limited success and weak evidence supporting their discrimination and constructive discharge claims. The court noted inconsistencies in Baird's deposition and Porter's personal reasons for leaving the firm, suggesting they realized their unlikelihood of prevailing.

gender discriminationequal pay actTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Lawattorneys' feesRule 68 offer of judgmentprevailing partylodestar calculationlimited successfee reduction
References
38
Case No. 2023-06-4955
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

Kean, Carma v. NAVION BKE BELLEVUE, LLC

Navion BKE Bellevue, LLC, filed a motion for partial summary judgment, contending there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding permanent impairment from Ms. Kean’s work-related injury. After a hearing, the Court granted the motion, finding no permanent impairment. However, because the parties agreed the claim was compensable, the Court ordered Navion to provide continuing reasonable and necessary medical treatment. The Court dismissed Ms. Kean's claim for permanent disability benefits with prejudice but affirmed her entitlement to future medical benefits, the need for which must be determined at the time they are requested.

Summary JudgmentPermanent ImpairmentMedical Treatment BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdmissibility of EvidenceC-32 FormsMedical Records AdmissibilityWaiver of ObjectionCompensabilityTemporary Disability Benefits
References
6
Case No. ADJ8361039
Regular
Oct 05, 2018

Ruth Sievers vs. Central Coast Orthopedics, Compwest Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a finding of $67\%$ permanent disability. The applicant argued for $100\%$ permanent disability and for full reimbursement of vocational expert costs, including reviewing surveillance videos. The majority agreed with the WCJ that the expert's review of videos was not reasonable or necessary, while a dissenting commissioner would have allowed these costs. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and reasoning in denying the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Disability RatingVocational ExpertLabor Code Section 5811Surveillance VideosRebuttal EvidenceMedical-Legal CostsIndustrial Injury
References
3
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
2
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
4
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
3
Showing 1-10 of 8,449 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