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. ADJ10146503
Regular
Oct 20, 2018

ALAN KOON vs. RZ PLUMBING, INC.; AMTRUST

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to applicant's attorney, Robert Rassp, pursuant to Labor Code section 5801. The Second District Court of Appeals had previously remanded the matter for this purpose. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed Rassp's request for 13.25 hours of work and $865.59 in costs, totaling $6,165.59. The Board disallowed two hours of travel time due to lack of clarity on the reasonableness and nature of the activity. Ultimately, the Board awarded Rassp a total of $5,365.59 in attorney's fees and costs.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feescostsremandWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardbill of particularsreasonableness of feestravel time deductionawarded amounttrial level return
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Alliance Network, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.

In this Memorandum Decision and Order, the District Court addressed post-trial motions filed by the Defendants after a jury verdict favored the Plaintiffs on claims of unpaid fees, breach of confidentiality, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 or, alternatively, a new trial under Rule 59. The Court denied the Rule 50 motion, citing procedural bars and sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's findings. Furthermore, the Rule 59 motion for a new trial was denied, as the Court found no errors in the weight of the evidence, curative instructions, discovery, or evidentiary rulings, and deemed the verdict not excessive. Consequently, the jury's verdict was affirmed.

Judgment as a matter of lawNew trial motionBreach of confidentialityMisappropriation of trade secretsUnpaid feesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 50Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59Evidentiary rulingsDiscovery violationsJury verdict
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marinen v. City of New York

Plaintiffs Kathleen Makinen and Jamie Nardini sued the City of New York, Commissioner Raymond Kelly, and Sergeant Daniel Sweeney for disability discrimination based on perceived alcoholism, violating the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). A jury found for the plaintiffs under the NYCHRL and awarded damages. Defendants filed Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 post-trial motions. The court partially granted the Rule 50(b) motion, vacating punitive damages against Commissioner Kelly, but denied all other Rule 50(b) claims and the entire Rule 59 motion. The decision upheld compensatory and punitive damages against Sergeant Sweeney, finding sufficient evidence of his malice or reckless indifference.

DiscriminationPerceived DisabilityAlcoholismNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights LawAmericans with Disabilities ActPost-Trial MotionsRule 50Rule 59Punitive Damages
References
98
Case No. 727 F. Supp. 2d 95
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2010

Menghi v. Hart

Plaintiff Jennifer Menghi sued defendants Teddy Hart and Suffolk County for civil rights violations and Drivers' Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) violations. A jury found in favor of Menghi on DPPA claims, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(b)) or a new trial (Rule 59) and sought damages reduction. Plaintiff moved for attorneys' fees. The court denied Rule 50 motions, granted in part and denied in part Rule 59 motions (ordering a new trial on damages unless plaintiff accepts remittitur to $500,000 compensatory and $100,000 punitive damages), and partially granted plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the amounts of $230,878.80 and $1,081.80 respectively.

DPPA ViolationDrivers' Privacy Protection ActVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentHarassmentEmotional DistressGraves' DiseasePTSDCompensatory DamagesPunitive Damages
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kinneary v. City of New York

Plaintiff Joseph Kinneary sued the City of New York and several employees for disability discrimination under various federal and state laws, alleging "shy bladder syndrome." After a jury verdict in Kinneary's favor, awarding $100,000 in back pay and $125,000 in non-economic damages, both parties filed post-verdict motions. City Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50) or a new trial/remittitur (Rule 59). Kinneary moved for reinstatement, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Court denied City Defendants' Rule 50 motion and Kinneary's reinstatement motion. It granted City Defendants' Rule 59 motion for a new trial on non-economic damages unless Kinneary accepted a remittitur to $25,000. Kinneary's motions for prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs were granted.

Disability DiscriminationShy Bladder SyndromeAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawBack Pay AwardEmotional DamagesRemittiturPrejudgment Interest
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whitton v. Williams

This case involves a civil action brought by plaintiff Matthew T. Whitton against New York State Trooper Jason Robles under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment violations. A jury found Robles liable for unlawful arrest but granted qualified immunity to co-defendant Marlando Williams. Robles subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) and, alternatively, for a new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a). The court granted Robles's Rule 50 motion, finding him entitled to qualified immunity due to the objective reasonableness of his belief in probable cause, even if the jury found otherwise. The court denied Robles's Rule 59 motion for a new trial, concluding that ample evidence supported the jury's finding of a lack of probable cause.

Fourth AmendmentSection 1983Qualified ImmunityUnlawful ArrestProbable CauseDriving While IntoxicatedSearch and SeizureField Sobriety TestBreathalyzerState Trooper
References
22
Case No. 59 N.Y.2d 776
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1983

MATTER OF BOCK v. Cooperman

Debby Bock, acting as appellant pro se, filed an appeal against Arthur Cooperman, who serves as the Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board of the State of New York, and other respondents. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York reviewed the matter and affirmed the lower court's order. The decision was based on the reasons detailed in the memorandum issued by the Appellate Division.

Appellate ReviewAffirmationPro Se AppellantState Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial DecisionLegal AppealNew York LawGovernmental Entity DefendantChairman of Board
References
1
Case No. Docket Nos. 41, 42, 47, 48, 50, 63, 44, 45, 57-59, 52, 53, 65, 66, 60, 61
Regular Panel Decision

TC Systems Inc. v. Town of Colonie, New York

This case involves a dispute between telecommunications service providers (Plaintiffs, including TC Systems Incorporated) and the Town of Colonie concerning Local Law No. 13 of 1999. Plaintiffs contend that this law, which imposes a five percent gross revenue fee for the use of public rights-of-way, violates the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Section 99 of the New York Public Service Law. The Town of Colonie counterclaimed, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 13 and Section 27 of the New York Transportation Corporations Law by TC Systems. Presiding Magistrate Judge Treece addressed multiple motions to exclude expert testimony. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motions to preclude testimony from Dennis J. O’Donnell and Leonard Krumm, while partially granting and denying Colonie's motion to exclude Patricia Kravtin's testimony, primarily due to impermissible legal conclusions in parts of her report.

Expert TestimonyAdmissibilityTelecommunications Act of 1996Local Law No. 13Gross Revenues FeePublic Rights of WayDaubert StandardFederal Rules of EvidenceRule 702Rule 403
References
23
Case No. ADJ6711975
Regular
Aug 05, 2013

DIONICIO REYES vs. FILOMENA D'AMORE, FIRSTCOMP OMAHA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition to vacate an order dismissing their lien for failure to pay an activation fee. The petition was untimely, filed 59 days after the order was served. The Board also granted removal on its own motion to issue a notice of intention to impose sanctions due to the petition's untimeliness and multiple misrepresentations of fact. The Board is considering imposing a $500 sanction against the lien claimant's representative.

Lien ClaimantPetition to Vacate OrderLien Activation FeeLabor Code section 4903.06Untimely PetitionRemoval on Own MotionNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsLabor Code section 5813Misrepresented Material FactsWCAB Rule 10842(a)
References
0
Case No. ADJ11216077
Regular
Mar 19, 2019

MANUEL GUTIERREZ vs. CALIPATRIA STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the previous award, admitting a crucial supplemental medical report into evidence. This report, which was previously excluded, casts doubt on the applicant's initial $59\%$ permanent disability rating due to hypertension. The Board found that the Mandatory Settlement Conference judge erred in closing discovery, preventing the admission of this report. Further proceedings will now consider the impact of this newly admitted evidence on the applicant's claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorHypertensionCorrectional OfficerLeft Ventricular HypertrophyHeart Trouble PresumptionLabor Code Section 3212.2Labor Code Section 3212.10Mandatory Settlement ConferenceClosing Discovery
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 48 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