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

Insurance Co. of North America v. Stuebing

This case involves a dispute between an injured worker's attorneys and the Insurance Company of North America (INA), the insurer under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, concerning attorney's fees. INA had paid benefits to Mrs. Joseph C. Stuebing and later joined her attorneys, Cantey, Hanger, Gooch, Munn & Collins, to recover common law damages from a third-party tort-feasor. The third-party suit was settled for $100,000, with INA receiving $34,090.21, its full subrogated amount. The trial court awarded $5,500 in attorney's fees against INA, which INA appealed, arguing the award was excessive or unwarranted given that the settlement amount was initially offered before the attorneys' involvement. The appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of the attorneys' time, while otherwise upholding the principle that an insurer can be liable for a portion of the employee's attorney's fees under certain circumstances.

Attorney's FeesWorkers' Compensation ActSubrogation RightsThird-Party Tort-feasorInsufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandSettlement AgreementContingent FeeInsurance Carrier
References
1
Case No. Motions Nos. 5 and 7
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

Rachlin v. Lewis

This case consolidates two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging the Insurance Department's regulations on attorneys' fees in no-fault automobile insurance disputes and the constitutionality of certain sections of the Insurance Law. The petitioners sought to rescind 11 NYCRR 65.16 and declare Insurance Law section 671 et seq. unconstitutional. The court ruled that sections 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (ix), which prohibited attorneys from charging clients fees in excess of insurer-paid fees, and 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (vii), concerning the regulation of disbursements, were invalid as they exceeded the scope of the enabling legislation. However, the court upheld the general fee schedule, finding a rational basis for its establishment by the Insurance Department.

Attorney's FeesNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawRegulatory ChallengeCPLR Article 78Administrative LawConstitutional LawDisbursementsArbitrationAutomobile Insurance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Relativity Fashion, LLC

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a motion for attorneys' fees and expenses filed by Relativity Media, LLC (and its affiliates RML Distribution Domestic, LLC, Armored Car Productions, LLC, and DR Productions, LLC, collectively 'Relativity') and Mr. Ryan Kavanaugh against Netflix, Inc. The dispute arose from Netflix's refusal to execute 'Date Extension Amendments' related to a License Agreement, prompting Relativity to seek relief under Section 1142 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court previously ruled that Netflix was barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel from asserting its claimed contractual rights to distribute films before theatrical release. In this opinion, the Court determined that Relativity was the 'prevailing party' under California Civil Code Section 1717 and the License Agreement's fee provision. Consequently, Relativity is entitled to reimbursement for its own reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. However, the Court denied Mr. Kavanaugh's request for reimbursement of his counsel's fees and expenses, concluding that he was not a party to the License Agreement and did not meet the exceptions for non-signatories to recover fees. The Court awarded Relativity $818,547.48, comprising $795,732.50 in attorneys’ fees and $22,814.98 in litigation expenses, against Netflix.

Attorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesContract LawCalifornia Civil Code Section 1717Bankruptcy Code Section 1142Prevailing PartyLodestar MethodHourly RatesJudicial EstoppelRes Judicata
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Marin v. Constitution Realty, LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the division of attorneys' fees among Sheryl Menkes (appellant), David B. Golomb, and Jeffrey A. Manheimer (respondents). Menkes, attorney of record for plaintiffs in a personal injury action, had agreements with both Golomb and Manheimer for fee sharing. The primary dispute concerned Golomb's share, contingent on whether the case settled at a specific mediation session (12% fee) or later (40% fee). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the contract unambiguous that the mediation session concluded on a specific date, entitling Golomb to the higher fee, and that Manheimer was entitled to 20% as per his agreement. The court rejected Menkes's arguments based on contract interpretation and professional conduct rules.

Attorney's FeesContract InterpretationMediation AgreementFee DisputePersonal Injury ActionQuantum MeruitProfessional ConductNew York LawSettlement NegotiationsStructured Settlement
References
13
Case No. ADJ4655433 (STK 0183897) ADJ4135432 (STK 0183898)
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

CARMELA GARCIA vs. E & J GALLO WINERY, P.S.I.

This case concerns a request for supplemental attorney's fees following an unsuccessful petition for writ of review by defendant E & J Gallo Winery. The Court of Appeal previously granted the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801 and remanded the matter. The applicant's attorney requested $3,150.00 for services related to answering the petition, which the defendant did not dispute in amount, only in principle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the requested amount reasonable and issued a supplemental award of $3,150.00 in attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feessupplemental awardpetition for writ of reviewremittiturreasonable basisapplicantdefendantE & J Gallo Winery
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Discover Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Tate

Justice Sandee Bryan Marion offers a concurring and dissenting opinion concerning the award of attorney's fees under Section 408.221 of the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act. She dissents from the majority's view, asserting that the Legislature intended for the trial court, not a jury, to determine attorney's fees, citing specific statutory language and precedent that grant discretion to the court. Conversely, she concurs with the judgment that the case should be remanded, emphasizing the claimant's right to a full evidentiary hearing when the reasonableness and necessity of attorney's fees are disputed. She argues that summary dispositions based solely on affidavits are insufficient for contested facts and stresses the importance of sworn testimony and cross-examination.

Attorney's Fees AwardStatutory InterpretationTrial Court DiscretionJury DeterminationPlenary Evidentiary HearingReasonableness and Necessity of FeesTexas Labor Code Section 408.221Appellate ProcedureCross-examinationAffidavit Evidence
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Misuraca v. Perales

This case involves appeals by the State and local Commissioners from two Supreme Court orders in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The initial proceeding challenged a denial of a shelter allowance to an unnamed petitioner and was settled by stipulation. The Supreme Court had awarded attorney's fees to the petitioner as a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1983. The appeals court dismissed the appeal concerning the denial of reargument, noting no appeal lies from such an order. Crucially, the court reversed the order awarding attorney's fees, ruling that the petitioner's federal due process claim, concerning the failure to produce a witness, was 'wholly without merit.' The court found the dispute involved a legal conclusion from undisputed facts, not a factual issue requiring cross-examination under Goldberg v Kelly, thus not entitling the petitioner to attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988.

Attorney's FeesCPLR Article 78Due ProcessShelter AllowancePrevailing PartyFederal Constitutional ClaimState ClaimsStipulation of Settlement42 USC § 198342 USC § 1988
References
9
Case No. 03-02-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General, against Seton Health Plan, Inc. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of civil penalties for Seton's failure to file annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. Seton sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the maximum penalty for such a violation was $10,000 per report, while the State initially pursued a penalty based on each day of violation. The district court sided with Seton on the maximum penalty, assessed minimum penalties of $1,000 for each of the two unfiled reports, denied the State's request for injunctive relief, and ordered the State to pay Seton's attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment, the denial of injunctive relief, and the penalty assessment. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees, ruling that the State was statutorily entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under Government Code section 402.006(c) due to its recovery of a civil penalty.

Texas LawHealth Care RegulationHEDIS Report ViolationCivil PenaltiesDeclaratory Judgment ActionSovereign Immunity WaiverInjunctive Relief DeniedAttorney's Fees AwardStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Law
References
44
Case No. 2022-08-0195
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2022

Evans, Antron v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

Mr. Antron Evans requested a panel of psychiatrists, attorney's fees, and payment of a medical bill following a store robbery where he sustained a head injury. Family Dollar, the employer, contended he was not entitled to a psychiatric panel without a referral from an authorized physician, disputed the medical bill, and denied wrongfully denying the claim for attorney's fees. The Court denied Mr. Evans's requests for a psychiatric panel and payment of the emergency room bill, citing the statutory requirement of a panel physician's referral for psychiatric services and lack of proof for the medical bill. However, the Court granted his request for attorney's fees due to Family Dollar's five-month delay in timely initiating medical benefits. Additionally, Family Dollar was referred to the Compliance Program for potential penalties concerning the late filing of the First Report of Injury and the untimely provision of a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical Benefits DenialAttorney's Fees GrantEmployer PenaltiesExpedited HearingPsychiatric ReferralStatutory InterpretationLate Claim ProcessingFirst Report of Injury DelayPost-Traumatic Stress
References
6
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,022 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