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. ADJ4024660 (LAO 0887729)
Regular
Feb 03, 2017

ALFREDO COLLAZO vs. MECA NAG CORPORATION, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case to the trial level for a new decision. The WCJ erred in determining the lien claimant's entitlement to payment solely on a multiplier of Medicare rates, rather than a reasonable cost basis. The Board clarified that while the facility's charges are not subject to the Official Medical Fee Schedule, their entitlement must be based on their actual costs plus a reasonable profit. Therefore, further proceedings are required to properly assess the reasonable cost basis for the services rendered.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderLien ClaimantReasonable Cost BasisMedicare ReimbursementOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLong Term Care HospitalKunz StudyTapia
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Maiorano v. Plumbing

Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits after being injured as a plumber in New York City. Despite residing in Brooklyn, the claimant sought to have hearings in White Plains, Westchester County, for convenience. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied this request, and the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, additionally assessing $500 in costs against the claimant’s counsel under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board Chair has authority over hearing locations and the claimant failed to provide a reasonable basis for the change of venue. The court also upheld the penalty assessment, finding substantial evidence for the Board's determination that the request lacked a reasonable basis.

Workers' Compensation LawVenue ChangeAppellate ReviewProcedural DenialCost AssessmentJudicial AuthorityAdministrative DiscretionClaimant RightsBoard DecisionAffirmation
References
3
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. ADJ8101494
Regular
Mar 14, 2017

ROBERTO ESCOBAR-IZARRARAS vs. ACCORN ENGINEERING, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board reconsidered a WCJ's decision disallowing the remainder of a hospital's lien. The WCJ found the lien unreasonable based on an incorrect standard, as the hospital's services were not subject to the Official Medical Fee Schedule and were to be paid on a "reasonable cost basis." The Appeals Board rescinded the prior decision, returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision. This decision clarifies that the lien claimant bears the burden of proving the reasonableness of its charges on a cost basis, not just its usual fees.

WCABReconsiderationLien ClaimantMonrovia Memorial HospitalKunz studyReasonable Cost BasisOMFSLabor Code § 4600Burden of ProofPreponderance of the Evidence
References
2
Case No. ADJ10160197 ADJ8200777
Regular
Sep 03, 2019

JOSE CARDENAS vs. COSTA VIEW FARMS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Monrovia Hospital's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original decision that the hospital was entitled to nothing further on its lien. The Board found that the hospital failed to meet its burden of proving its charges were based on a "reasonable cost basis" as required for long-term care facilities exempt from the Official Medical Fee Schedule. Expert testimony presented by both parties, particularly regarding cost-to-charge ratios derived from OSHPD data, supported the finding that the hospital's proposed methodologies did not adequately demonstrate reasonable costs. The Board affirmed that the hospital, not the defendant, bears the affirmative burden of proving the reasonableness of its lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMonrovia HospitalCosta View FarmsZenith Insurance CompanyWCJLabor Code section 5906reasonable cost basis
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mejia v. Camabo Industries, Inc.

This case details an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The claimant, injured as a bridge painter, requested a change of venue for his workers' compensation hearings to White Plains, Westchester County, for convenience. This request was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge based on a general policy that hearings should be scheduled in the claimant's district of residence, as the claimant lived in Bronx County and worked in Nassau County. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the denial and further assessed $500 in costs against the claimant's counsel for continuing the matter without reasonable grounds. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the challenge to the Board's policy was not preserved for review and was, in any event, without merit. The court also upheld the denial of the venue request and the imposition of costs on counsel, finding substantial evidence that the request was made without a reasonable basis under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii).

Venue ChangeWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewCosts AssessmentCounsel PenaltyBoard DecisionJudicial ReviewPolicy ChallengePreservation of ErrorSubstantial Evidence
References
3
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 6,448 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