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 2The touchstone of a fee awarded pursuant to section 5801 is reasonableness. (2 Cal. Workers' Comp. Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar, March 2019 Update) Judicial Review, § 22.15.) The issue of reasonableness includes consideration of the fact that the fee must be based on services rendered in connection with the petition for writ of review. For instance, a reasonable fee does not include attorney time spent on "inefficient or duplicative efforts" or on clerical tasks. In such a
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
Defendant filed no objection to the time statement despite opportunity to do so.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This supported the Board's finding that the requested attorney's fees were mostly reasonable.
The writ petition raised no complex legal issues or complex factual pattern.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This led the Board to reduce the requested hours and disallow clerical tasks in the fee award.
From the decision · page 3