The Court found no reasonable basis for defendants' petition for writ of review and remanded for supplemental attorney's fees to applicant and her counsel, which the Board awarded as stipulated by the parties.
From the decision · page 1The Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal (the Court) issued an order on
October 1, 2025 denying a petition for writ of review filed by counsel for defendants, Llarena,
Murdock, Lopez & Aziza, APC, in this matter, and remanded the matter to the Appeals Board for
the purpose of making a supplemental award to respondent the applicant for reasonable
attorney's fees for services rendered in connection with this petition. (Lab. Code, § 5801.)" (Order,
October 1, 2025, emphasis added.) The Court's order was based on its finding "that there was no
reasonable basis for the petition (See Lab. Code, § 5950; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals
Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1074.)" (Ibid.)
The facts that decided it
What the panel treated as outcome-determinative, and which side it favoured.
The Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal found no reasonable basis for defendants' petition for writ of review.
Favours Applicant prevailed
This finding triggered the remand for supplemental attorney's fees under Labor Code section 5801.
Private workspace
Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.
Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.
The Sixth Appellate District Court of Appeal (the Court) issued an order on
October 1, 2025 denying a petition for writ of review filed by counsel for defendants, Llarena,
Murdock, Lopez & Aziza, APC, in this matter, and remanded the matter to the Appeals Board for
the purpose of making a supplemental award to respondent the applicant for reasonable
attorney's fees for services rendered in connection with this petition. (Lab. Code, § 5801.)" (Order,
October 1, 2025, emphasis added.) The Court's order was based on its finding "that there was no
reasonable basis for the petition (See Lab. Code, § 5950; Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals
Bd. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1074.)" (Ibid.)
Favours Applicant prevailed
The Board adopted this stipulation as the basis for the supplemental award.
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 supplemental attorney's fees pursuant to this statute following the Court's remand.
From the decision · page 1Labor Code section 5801 states in pertinent part:
In the event the injured employee or the dependent of a deceased employee
prevails in any petition by the employer for a writ of review from an award of
the appeals board and the reviewing court finds that there is no reasonable basis
for the petition, it shall remand the cause to the appeals board for the purpose
of making a supplemental award awarding to the injured employee or his
attorney, or the dependent of a deceased employee or his attorney a reasonable
attorney's fee for services rendered in connection with the petition for writ of
review. Any such fee shall be in addition to the amount of compensation
otherwise recoverable and shall be paid as part of the award by the party liable
to pay such award.
Find decisions like this onePanel decision
The same issues, filtered across the whole corpus — or paste your own facts and let the search rank by factor match.
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.