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

Yeshiva University v. New England Educational Institute, Inc.

In a Lanham Act action, defendants, who prevailed after a jury trial against plaintiff Yeshiva, sought approximately $50,000 in attorney's fees. The application presented a novel question: whether a prevailing defendant is entitled to fees when the plaintiff's liability claims were asserted in good faith but the damage claims were grossly exaggerated. The court first affirmed the applicability of the Lanham Act's attorney fee provision, § 35(a), to actions involving unregistered marks, citing precedent. Despite acknowledging the plaintiff's highly exaggerated damage claims, the court determined that the case, which was close on the merits regarding the initial copying allegations, did not meet the 'exceptional cases' standard required for awarding attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant. Consequently, the defendants' application for attorney's fees was denied.

Lanham ActAttorney's FeesPrevailing DefendantExceptional CasesUnregistered MarkDamage ClaimsExaggerated DamagesGood Faith LitigationJury VerdictNon-profit Dispute
References
7
Case No. ADJ174481 (SAL 0095964)
Regular
Nov 19, 2008

LAURA WILLIAMS-WELTY vs. TILE WEST, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration regarding the 27% permanent disability finding, upholding the WCJ's reliance on the Agreed Medical Evaluator's report. However, the Board granted the applicant's attorney's petition to correct a clerical error regarding his fee. The WCJ's award of $2,750 was amended to reflect a 15% attorney's fee, acknowledging the attorney's extensive work and successful outcomes for the applicant over several years.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial EvidenceAttorney's FeePetition to Correct Clerical Error
References
2
Case No. ADJ10600929
Regular
Dec 02, 2020

LUSINO ABARCA vs. AMERICAN APPAREL USA, LLC, ARCH INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, CORVEL CORPORATION, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Court of Appeal remanded this case to the Appeals Board for an award of additional attorney's fees for services rendered opposing a petition for writ of review. Applicant's attorney requested $7,600.00 for 19 hours of work at $400.00 per hour, providing a detailed accounting of services. The Appeals Board found this request reasonable based on the attorney's skill, the good result obtained, and the lack of objection from the defendant. The Board awarded the full requested amount of $7,600.00 in attorney's fees to applicant's counsel.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's FeesWrit of ReviewAppeals BoardReasonable FeeAppellate ServicesApplicant's AttorneyDefendant's PetitionCase-by-case basisJudicial Review
References
4
Case No. ADJ5690219
Regular
Jul 31, 2015

TOM PALLADINO vs. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award and issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions on applicant's attorney. This action stems from alleged false, misleading, and unsubstantiated allegations made by the attorney in the applicant's Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found no evidence to support the claims of intentional delay by the defendant and determined the attorney's statements to be without merit and potentially prejudicial. The attorney and his firm face a $750 sanction unless good cause is shown why it should not be imposed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityApportionmentSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Attorney Misconduct
References
0
Case No. ADJ10065068
Regular
May 02, 2018

JOHN LAMBERT vs. COUNTY OF KERN

This case concerns a supplemental award of attorney's fees to the applicant's attorney. Following the denial of the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review by the Court of Appeal, the matter was remanded for this specific purpose. The applicant's attorney submitted a petition requesting \$9,765.00 for 27.9 hours of work at \$350 per hour in opposing the writ. Without objection from the defendant and after considering the reasonableness of the requested fees, the Appeals Board awarded the full \$9,765.00 in appellate attorney's fees.

Labor Code § 5801additional attorney's feessupplemental awardPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of Appealappellate attorney's feestime loghourly ratecase-by-case basismerits of appellate work
References
1
Case No. ADJ2567272 (AHM 0105012)
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

, Applicant, FELIX NINO MOTA vs. ALLGREEN LANDSCAPE; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by FARA Adjusting Services

Applicant's attorneys requested $51,900 in attorney's fees under Labor Code Section 5801 for work related to a writ of review. The Appeals Board found the declarations supporting the request inadequate due to lack of itemization and justification for the hours and rates. Consequently, the Board may award a fee of up to $16,000, but reserves the right to award substantially less or nothing at all due to the potentially inflated nature of the initial request. Applicant's attorneys must provide detailed itemizations and show good cause to receive any fee.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feespetition for writ of reviewAppeals Boarddeclarationsitemized billingshourly ratecertified workers' compensation specialistclerical tasksunreasonably inflated
References
9
Case No. ADJ9597686
Regular
Jan 13, 2016

TOMIE KATO vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is reconsidering an order directing the City and County of San Francisco (defendant) to pay applicant's attorney $\$ 3,082.00$ for deposition fees. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the fee was unreasonable and requesting sanctions against applicant's attorney. The WCAB deemed the defendant's petition to be a timely objection to the original order. The matter is returned to the Workers' Compensation Judge to consider the objection and determine the reasonableness of the attorney fees. The WCAB denied the request for sanctions against applicant's attorney.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationSection 5710 Attorney Deposition FeesWCJPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 5813 SanctionsReasonableness of Attorney FeesDeposition TranscriptMotor Vehicle Accident
References
0
Case No. ADJ6822451
Regular
Feb 26, 2014

JIMMAR WEBB vs. RALPHS GROCERY CO., SEDGWICK CMS INC.

In *Jimmar Webb v. Ralphs Grocery Co.*, the Appeals Board affirmed a WCJ's award of temporary and permanent disability benefits for a lumbar spine injury resulting in psychiatric and sleep disorders. The applicant's attorney sought reconsideration based on alleged apportionment errors, but the Board found no apportionment was applied in the original award. Consequently, the Appeals Board, on its own motion, granted removal and issued a notice of intent to impose sanctions on the applicant's attorneys for filing a frivolous petition intended to reopen the record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryLumbar SpinePsychiatric DisorderSleep DisorderCompensable ConsequenceTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castleberry v. Hudson Valley Asphalt Corp.

This case concerns an application by a plaintiff, injured in 1973, for the apportionment of attorney's fees incurred in a third-party action. The plaintiff, who receives weekly workers' compensation benefits from Utica Mutual Insurance Co., secured a $75,000 settlement after an initial judgment was set aside on appeal. The central issue was whether the compensation carrier, Utica Mutual, should bear the full amount of the attorney's fees for the $75,000 settlement, thereby vacating its $20,402 lien. The court, exercising its discretion under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29, determined that since the entire settlement benefited the carrier by reducing its future obligations, the carrier should be responsible for all attorney's fees, and its lien was consequently vacated.

Attorney's Fees ApportionmentLien VacationThird-Party SettlementInsurance Carrier LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 29Subrogation RightsEquitable ApportionmentJudicial DiscretionStatutory BenefitWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15,331 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