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
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1980

In re the Claim of Ross v. Standard Milling Co.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on February 5, 1980, which approved a $50 attorney’s fee as a lien upon an award made to the claimant. The claimant had sustained a back injury in March 1978 and received compensation payments from the carrier. After retaining an attorney, a hearing in May 1979 established accident, notice, and causal relationship, formalizing the award already paid by the carrier. The carrier contested the attorney's fee as a lien, arguing the claimant had already received the full award. The Board affirmed the lien, citing relevant case law and Section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesLienAwardAffirmed DecisionStatutory InterpretationNew York LawBoard DecisionInsurance CarrierLegal Services
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Continental Insurance

Petitioner, injured in a May 1990 work-related automobile accident, was awarded workers' compensation benefits. Respondent, the compensation carrier, asserted a lien claim and required written consent for any third-party settlement. In July 1993, petitioner settled a third-party action for $60,000 without obtaining respondent's consent. Consequently, respondent suspended benefits, and the Workers' Compensation Board approved the termination of awards in May 1995. Nine years later, in November 2002, petitioner sought judicial approval of the settlement nunc pro tunc, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the inordinate nine-year delay in seeking judicial approval was inexcusable, despite petitioner's prior knowledge of the consent requirement and the carrier's consistent assertion of its rights.

Workers CompensationJudicial ApprovalNunc Pro TuncPersonal Injury SettlementThird-Party ActionCarrier ConsentDelayPrejudiceStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ17547374
Regular
Oct 16, 2025

WARREN P. HARVEY vs. SOCAL MACHINE, INC., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered applicant Warren P. Harvey's petition for reconsideration regarding the equitable hourly reimbursement rates for in-home health care provided by his spouse, asserting errors in the WCJ's rate calculation and attorneys' fees. After an unsuccessful settlement conference, the parties filed Stipulations With Request for Award, agreeing to permanent total disability and further medical treatment for the applicant, though these stipulations did not resolve the reconsideration issues. The Board approved these stipulations, finding them adequate and in the applicant's best interest, and issued an award based upon them, which included specific disability indemnity, medical treatment, and attorney's fees. The Board also commended the parties for resolving some important issues and urged them to continue efforts on the remaining disputes.

Equitable hourly reimbursement ratesIn-home health careCaregiver dutiesNursing dutiesCommunity HHC providerPetition for reconsiderationStipulations With Request for AwardPermanent total disabilityTemporary disability indemnityAttorneys' fee
References
0
Case No. SAL 104703
Regular
Mar 14, 2008

GONZALEZ vs. GILROY FOODS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

This case concerns a supplemental award of attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following the denial of a defendant's petition for writ of review. The Court of Appeal found no reasonable basis for the petition and remanded the case for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to award fees for services rendered in connection with that petition. The WCAB affirmed the award of attorney's fees, clarifying that the WCJ lacks jurisdiction to approve fees under § 5801, which is the sole province of the WCAB upon remand.

Labor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental AwardAttorney's FeesRemandWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCourt of AppealStipulation and AwardWCJFindings Order and Award
References
1
Case No. ADJ2016167 (SAC 0367576) ADJ1468086 (SAC 0329245)
Regular
Jun 02, 2011

STEVEN SHADDEN (Deceased) KAMESHA SHADDEN (Widow) vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns supplemental attorney's fees awarded after the employer's petition for writ of review was denied by the Court of Appeal. The appellate court found no reasonable basis for the employer's petition and remanded the case for supplemental attorney fee awards. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed and approved stipulations for attorney fees totaling $3,000.00 for one counsel and $7,537.30 (including costs) for another. The WCAB issued awards in favor of the respective law firms against the Department of Corrections for these amounts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewRemittiturStipulationReasonable FeesAwardDepartment of Corrections and RehabilitationState Compensation Insurance Fund
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rotating Components, Inc. & District 4, International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO

Petitioner moved to confirm an arbitration award, while Respondent cross-moved to vacate it, alleging imperfect execution and lack of a mutual, final, and definite award. The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement from December 1959, and a supplementary agreement from January 1960, which stipulated the assignment of the main agreement to a local union within 18 months, with arbitration if the assignment failed. The arbitrator issued an interim award on September 21, 1961, instructing the union to assign the agreement within 30 days. Upon the union's failure, the arbitrator, on October 29, 1961, assigned the agreement to a new local union to be formed for the employees of Rotating Components, Inc. The court found the arbitrator's award to be within his express powers and rejected the objection regarding the finality and definiteness of the award. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner's motion to confirm the award and denied the respondent's cross-motion to vacate it.

Arbitration AwardCollective BargainingUnion AssignmentContract DisputeMotion to ConfirmMotion to VacateLabor DisputeJudicial ReviewInterim AwardFinality of Award
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pavone v. Ambassador Transport, Inc.

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in June 1999 and subsequently retained the law firm Ervin, McCane & Daly for representation before the Workers’ Compensation Board. In February 2003, the firm sought a $4,800 fee, which was approved by a workers' compensation law judge despite claimant's objections. A Board panel later affirmed this decision, and the claimant's request for reconsideration or full Board review was denied, leading to this appeal. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in approving the attorney's fee. It noted that for contested matters with fees over $450, a detailed accounting of time is not mandated by 12 NYCRR 300.17 (f). The Court concluded that the fee was reasonable, less than 10% of the total award, and considered claimant's financial status, thus the Board's approval was not arbitrary or capricious.

Attorney Fee DisputeAdministrative LawWorkers' Compensation ProcedureAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionBoard Panel DecisionFee CalculationLegal EthicsNYCRR RegulationsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1989

Lange v. Sartorius, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which affirmed an arbitrators’ award in favor of the petitioner and denied the respondents’ cross-motion to vacate it. The dispute arose from the petitioner's termination of employment, which was submitted to arbitration as per their employment agreements. The arbitrators found that the respondents had not complied with the agreements and rendered a monetary award to the petitioner, considering his sudden departure. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that arbitration awards are given deference and are not subject to judicial review for merely erroneous factual findings unless completely irrational. Since the arbitrators' award was not irrational, the Supreme Court's order was affirmed.

Arbitration AwardConfirmation of AwardVacatur of AwardEmployment DisputeJudicial Review of ArbitrationDeference to ArbitratorsIrrational FindingsNew York LawFederal LawAppellate Affirmation
References
4
Case No. ADJ581749 (VNO 0529719)
Regular
Jul 02, 2012

ARLENE HITE vs. TEPCO (STANDARD ABRASIVES, INC.), EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CLARENDON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Clarendon National Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's contribution award. Clarendon argued it should not be liable for contribution because it was joined as a defendant over a year after the underlying cumulative trauma claim was settled. The Board denied reconsideration, finding that Clarendon received timely actual notice of Everest's contribution claim within one year of the settlement approval. Therefore, despite the delay in formal joinder, Clarendon cannot show prejudice and is liable for its share of the contribution award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ContributionLabor Code section 5500.5Cumulative traumaCompromise and releaseOrder of JoinderNunc pro tuncActual noticeTimely noticePrejudice
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,479 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