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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. M2002-00892-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2003

Amprite Electric v. Tennessee Stadium Group

Amprite Electric Company, an electrical subcontractor, sued Tennessee Stadium Group, LLP, a contractor, for compensation for extra work performed on the Adelphia Stadium project. Despite a subcontract requiring written change orders and compensation at actual costs plus 10%, this requirement was mutually waived. Amprite submitted claims based on industry manuals, which were significantly higher than its actual costs. The trial court initially found the contract abandoned and awarded Amprite a large sum based on an implied contract. However, the Court of Appeals held that only the written change order requirement was waived, affirming the original contract's compensation terms. The judgment was modified to allow Amprite a recovery of $170,084.00, based on its actual costs, while vacating awards for builder's risk claims and additional interest on retained funds, and reversing the pre-judgment interest award due to Amprite's inflated claims.

Construction LawContract DisputeWaiver of Contractual ProvisionsChange OrdersSubcontractor CompensationActual CostsQuantum MeruitPromissory EstoppelEquitable EstoppelPre-judgment Interest
References
11
Case No. ADJ2151993 (SFO 0507276)
Regular
May 18, 2018

RICHARD JOHNSON vs. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF PACIFICA

This case concerns the award of appellate costs to the City of Pacifica. The Court of Appeal previously affirmed a decision in Pacifica's favor and ordered the City of South San Francisco (CSSF) to bear Pacifica's costs. Pacifica subsequently submitted a verified petition for costs totaling $1,425.00, which included electronic filing and paper copy expenses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found Pacifica's requested costs reasonable and awarded them against CSSF.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturFirst District Court of AppealPetition for ReconsiderationArbitratorPetition for CostsAppellate CostsReimbursementVerified PetitionSubstantiation of Costs
References
1
Case No. ADJ3792740 (OAK 0325116)
Regular
Dec 12, 2008

BONNIE REDDRICK vs. TENET/DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant's attorney. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the determination of these costs following the denial of the defendant's petition for review. The Appeals Board awarded $152.21 in costs, representing verifiable delivery expenses, as in-house copying, mailing, and labor costs are considered overhead and not recoverable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Johnson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Supreme Court of CaliforniaItemized CostsDelivery CostsMailing CostsCopying Costs
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tokyo Electron Arizona, Inc. v. Discreet Industries Corp.

This order addresses the plaintiff Tokyo Electron Arizona's (TAZ) application for reasonable attorney's fees and costs against defendants Discreet Industries and Ovadia Meron (Discreet), pursuant to Federal Rule 37. The court determines the appropriate award by assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended, applying the lodestar method. While acknowledging the high caliber of work, the court reduced Mr. Haug's hourly rate and applied a 10% overall reduction to the billed hours to account for potential overlap. Additionally, the court found TAZ's copying and transcript costs reasonable and partially awarded costs for a computer-generated Power Point presentation. Ultimately, TAZ was awarded $55,751.79 in fees and $5386.19 in costs, totaling $61,137.98.

Attorney's FeesCostsDiscovery SanctionsFederal Rule 37Lodestar MethodHourly RatesReasonable HoursEastern District of New YorkSouthern District of New YorkWork Product Doctrine
References
26
Case No. 2024-60-3896
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2025

Huberney Vallejo, o/b/o Jhon Vallejo v. South Power Electric, LLC; The Sheffield Fund; Maddux Electric Co., Inc.; and Hanover Insurance

Jhon Vallejo, represented by his conservator Huberney Vallejo, sought workers' compensation benefits for catastrophic injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, sustained in a fall at work. The Court found that Mr. Vallejo is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits, determining that South Power Electric, LLC was his direct, uninsured employer, and Maddux Electric Co., Inc. was an intermediate and statutory employer. The Court rejected Maddux's safety rule violation defense, finding no proof that the ladder's condition caused the fall and that Mr. Vallejo lacked actual notice of the rule. Medical and temporary disability benefits were awarded, to be paid by South Power Electric, Maddux Electric, and Hanover Insurance. Additionally, Maddux Electric and Hanover Insurance were ordered to pay attorney's fees and costs due to their unreasonable denial of the claim.

Traumatic Brain InjurySafety Rule Violation DefenseLoaned Employee DoctrineStatutory Employer LiabilityAttorney's Fees AwardUnreasonable Claim DenialTemporary Total Disability BenefitsMedical Expense ReimbursementWorkplace AccidentEmployer Insurance Obligations
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King's Medical Supply Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp.

The plaintiff, a provider of medical supplies, moved for summary judgment seeking $2,522.86 in unpaid no-fault benefits for equipment provided to its assignors. The defendant insurer had made partial payments, asserting 'reasonable and customary fees' or technical denials, contrary to the plaintiff's interpretation of reimbursement based on 150% of documented cost. The court denied the plaintiff's motion, ruling that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case by providing admissible evidence of the actual 'documented cost' of the medical supplies. The court clarified that while the regulation specifies '150 percent of the documented cost,' insurers cannot unilaterally introduce additional 'reasonable or customary cost' requirements, but the plaintiff's inability to sufficiently document their costs was fatal to their motion.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault BenefitsMedical SuppliesMedical EquipmentInsurance LawDocumented CostPrima Facie CaseReimbursementRegulation InterpretationProvider Costs
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. City of New York

This Memorandum Decision and Order addresses attorneys' fees in a settled class action alleging Family Medical Leave Act violations against the City of New York. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate fee recovery for District Counsel 37 (DC 37), a union providing in-house legal services to the plaintiffs. The court examined ethical rules concerning fee-splitting between attorneys and non-lawyer organizations, concluding that a union cannot profit from legal services rendered by its salaried attorneys if the fees are deposited into its general treasury. Consequently, the court ruled that DC 37's recovery for its in-house counsel's work is limited to the actual costs incurred, rather than market rates. Plaintiffs' counsel was directed to submit precise documentation of Lewis Brisbois' reimbursement and DC 37's actual costs for a final determination of the awarded amount.

Attorneys' FeesClass ActionFamily Medical Leave ActFee-splittingEthical RulesIn-house CounselUnion RepresentationActual CostsMarket RateNew York Law
References
24
Case No. 3-93-672-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1994

Employers Casualty Company Focus Healthcare Management, Inc. Genesys Cost Management Systems, Inc. Corporate Systems, Ltd. Employers National Risk Management Services, Inc. And Havis Wayne Dortch v. Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self Insurance Fund El Paso I.S.D. Irving I.S.D. Hico I.S.D. And Aransas Pass I.S.D.

This is an interlocutory appeal from a district court order granting class certification. The Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund and several independent school districts (appellees) sued Employers Casualty Company and other entities (appellants) alleging misrepresentation and breach-of-contract related to workers' compensation benefits and medical cost containment services. Appellants raised seven points of error regarding standing, the certification hearing, and the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding that the Fund had standing, the class certification hearing was proper, and the class satisfied the prerequisites and maintenance criteria of Rule 42, particularly under Rule 42(b)(4) for predominance and superiority of common issues.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealStandingNumerosityCommonalityTypicalityRepresentativenessRule 42Predominance
References
22
Case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Regular
Jan 07, 2011

JOYCE GUZMAN vs. MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant, Joyce Guzman. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Appeals Board's decision and the Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for review. Following this, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur awarding costs to the applicant under Labor Code section 5811. The applicant requested $2,686.60 in appellate costs, which the Appeals Board found reasonable and awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMilpitas Unified School DistrictKeenan & AssociatesAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Court of AppealRemittiturPetition for ReviewItemized RequestReasonable Costs
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,545 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