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.
The rules the panel named
Authorities as the decision cited them, with how this panel applied each one.
Labor Code section 5801
Labor Code section 5801
The Board awarded reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Labor Code section 5801 based on the parties' stipulation and court remand.
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 same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
About this page
- A published decision of the California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, taken apart by what it turned on. The Board publishes the decision itself; this page adds the extraction and quotes the passage behind every claim.
- The injured worker is not named here, and the case caption is not printed. Physicians appear as the decision names them, because a medical opinion is an act in a public proceeding.
- Issues, outcomes and weights were extracted by AI and released only where the source passage checked. Read the official decision before relying on anything here. Not legal advice.
- If you are named in this decision and want this page removed, write to privacy@similarcase.com.