What was disputed, and how it came out
Each issue the panel decided, with the reasoning it gave. An outcome is what this panel did on this record — not a rule, and not a prediction.
From the decision · page 1In its March 20, 2023 order denying defendant's Petition for Writ of Review (No. A165531), the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) remanded this matter to the Appeals Board to make a supplemental award of reasonable attorney fees to the attorney for respondent (applicant), based upon services rendered in connection with defendant's petition for writ of review. (Lab. Code, § 5801; Crown Appliance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wong) (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 620, 627-628 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 55, 60-61]; Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rodriguez) (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 104, 108-109 [40 Cal.Comp.Cases 167, 169-170].) The court's order has become final.
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The First District Court of Appeal remanded the matter to the Appeals Board to make a supplemental award of reasonable attorney fees to applicant's attorney.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This remand directed the Board to award additional attorney fees related to defendant's petition for writ of review.
From the decision · page 1In its March 20, 2023 order denying defendant's Petition for Writ of Review (No. A165531), the First District Court of Appeal (Div. 5) remanded this matter to the Appeals Board to make a supplemental award of reasonable attorney fees to the attorney for respondent (applicant), based upon services rendered in connection with defendant's petition for writ of review. (Lab. Code, § 5801; Crown Appliance v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Wong) (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 620, 627-628 [69 Cal.Comp.Cases 55, 60-61]; Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Rodriguez) (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 104, 108-109 [40 Cal.Comp.Cases 167, 169-170].) The court's order has become final.