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. ADJ7673518, ADJ7647749
Regular
Jan 23, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION / CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior ruling, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury to her neck. While the applicant testified to injuring her neck in a workplace incident and this was partially corroborated, the Board found insufficient evidence for other claimed injuries. The Board specifically disagreed with the administrative law judge's credibility assessment concerning the neck injury itself, relying on medical reports and testimony supporting the neck injury claim. The Board affirmed the denial of claims for all other alleged injuries, finding insufficient medical evidence to link them to the incident.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjurySpine InjuryUpper ExtremitiesPsycheGastroesophageal SystemInternal System
References
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. ADJ3133261 (VNO 0400017)
Regular
Aug 17, 2010

FELIPE TOLENTINO vs. CONCO CEMENT, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, XCHANGING INC., FREMONT COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as premature. The WCAB granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding the temporary disability overpayment issue, deferring it for further proceedings. The Board affirmed the WCJ's findings on injury causation and permanent disability but amended the decision to clarify the overpayment issue. Finally, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to sanction defendant's counsel for attaching and citing unadmitted evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFELIPE TOLENTINOCONCO CEMENTCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONXCHANGING INC.FREMONT COMPENSATIONliquidationADJ3133261VNO 0400017OPINION AND ORDERS DISMISSING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
References
Case No. ADJ6950787
Regular
Jun 22, 2012

JOSE BARRIENTOS vs. MARK GREENBERG, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant argued the administrative law judge (WCJ) abused discretion by finding the applicant credible, specifically regarding the duration of employment to exclude him from employee status under Labor Code §3352(h). The WCJ adopted the report recommending denial, emphasizing applicant's credible testimony regarding hours worked and pay, and finding the defendant's testimony less reliable due to a lack of direct knowledge. The Board extended great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings, affirming the denial of reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJcredibility findingLabor Code §3352(h)employee definitionconflicting testimonyobservational demeanorunreliable testimonyunrebutted testimony
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. ADJ8009793
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

FELICIANO BARRANDA, FAUSTINO BASABES vs. MIKE ETCHANDY FARIAS, INC.; STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

In this workers' compensation case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendants' petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The WCAB affirmed the finding that the applicants sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, specifically applying the "required vehicle" exception to the going and coming rule. This exception was found applicable because the employer benefited incidentally from the use of applicant's private vehicle for transporting workers and tools between fields on the same day. The WCAB gave great weight to the Administrative Law Judge's credibility findings, particularly the testimony of applicant Feliciano Barranda.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAOE-COEGoing and Coming RuleRequired Vehicle ExceptionJoint Petition for ReconsiderationCredibility FindingSubstantial EvidenceSole Witness TestimonyEmployer Witness TestimonyApplicant Testimony
References
Case No. GRO 0031810
En Banc
Nov 13, 2007

Joey M. Costa vs. Hardy Diagnostic, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, holding that Labor Code section 4660 allows parties to present rebuttal evidence to a permanent disability rating under the new PDRS, and the reasonable and necessary costs for such evidence, like vocational expert testimony, may be allowable under section 5811.

PDRSSB 899vocational rehabilitationexpert witnessrebuttal evidencepermanent disability ratingLabor Code section 5811medical-legal costsreasonable and necessaryWCJ
References
Case No. ADJ3533537 (VNO 0556925)
Regular
Apr 14, 2016

Richard Varela vs. Morley Group, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed an award of $2,737.50 for an expert witness's trial testimony, clarifying that such expenses are permissible costs under Labor Code section 5811. The Board held that the expert's testimony regarding the necessity of home health care services was relevant to the lien claimants' burden of proof, even though the primary injury claim was ultimately unsuccessful. This decision distinguishes between medical-legal expenses and trial witness costs, allowing for the latter when reasonably incurred for essential elements of a lien claim. The Board found the expert's testimony necessary for the lien claimants to establish all elements of their case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Findings of Fact and OrderLabor Code section 5811lien claimantshome health care servicesexpert testimonytrial testimonyreasonableness and necessityinjury AOE/COEmedical-legal expenses
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. GRO 0031810
Significant
Nov 13, 2007

JOEY M. COSTA, Applicant vs. HARDY DIAGNOSTIC, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board affirmed its prior holding that parties may present rebuttal evidence to a permanent disability rating, and the costs of such evidence may be allowable under Labor Code section 5811 if reasonable and necessary. The case was returned to the trial level to determine the specific reimbursement for the vocational expert's costs.

PDRSSB 899rebuttal evidencevocational rehabilitation consultantexpert witness feesSection 5811medical-legal costsLabor Code Section 4660permanent disability ratingtestimony
References
Showing 1-10 of 1,622 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