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
Sep 09, 1991

Cleary v. Perales

This case concerns an appeal regarding the entitlement to attorney's fees for a mentally retarded man (petitioner) who successfully challenged the denial of Medicaid reimbursement for his transportation to a Federal sheltered workshop via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The initial IAS Court found the denial of Medicaid coverage irrational and not in accordance with social services law. On appeal, the court unanimously reversed the lower court's denial of attorney's fees, concluding that the petitioner, as a prevailing party, was entitled to such fees under 42 USC § 1988. The court determined that the federal claim had sufficient substance and derived from a common nucleus of operative fact with the state claim. The matter was remanded for the calculation of attorney's fees, with the State respondent bearing the final responsibility.

Attorney's FeesMedicaid ReimbursementSocial Security DisabilityCPLR Article 78Federal Statutory RightsPrevailing PartyCommon Nucleus of Operative FactMental RetardationTransportation CostsSocial Services Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buscher v. Bulldog Steel Products

Buscher, an injured worker, settled his workers' compensation claim with Texas General Indemnity (TGI). He and TGI then successfully pursued a third-party action against Bulldog Steel and Bobby Bryant, resulting in a $100,000 settlement, with TGI recouping its $49,000 subrogation interest and Buscher receiving $51,000. Buscher's attorney, Sam Chase, received a contingency fee from Buscher's portion but was denied a statutory attorney's fee from TGI's subrogation recovery by the trial court. Chase appealed, arguing his efforts benefited TGI by making the settlement possible. The appellate court agreed that Chase's services did benefit TGI to some extent, citing the statute requiring apportionment of fees when both claimant's and association's attorneys actively participate. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for the proper apportionment of attorney's fees.

Worker's CompensationAttorney's FeesSubrogationThird-Party ActionTexas LawInsurance CarrierSettlementLegal ServicesBenefitJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. OF RHODE ISLAND

This case examines whether attorney fees can be recovered from a workers’ compensation carrier under TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 2226, in addition to fees already awarded under art. 8306, § 7c. The appellant argued that a workers' compensation claim against the carrier, based on a contract, should allow for additional attorney fees under article 2226. However, the court ruled against this, citing that article 2226 is not applicable when attorney fees are already available through other specific statutes. The decision referenced prior cases like Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Burke, which established that article 2226 excludes claims against insurance companies where other statutes provide for attorney fees. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of additional attorney fees.

Attorney FeesWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Civil StatutesInsurance Contracts ExclusionLegislative IntentAppellate ReviewLegal PrecedentIndemnityCarrier Liability
References
2
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. 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. 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. 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. 03-12-00309-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2013

Larry F. York// Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation and Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas v. Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation And Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas// Cross- Larry F. York

This case involves Larry F. York's challenge to an Attorney General's open-records ruling concerning the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (TGSL). York sought disclosure of various TGSL records, including board meeting minutes, a Strategic Plan, President's Reports, EAS-related documents, and a VFA application. The district court ordered disclosure of the actual minutes and EAS records but allowed TGSL to withhold attachments, the Strategic Plan, President's Reports, and pricing information from the VFA application. The Court of Appeals largely sided with York, affirming the disclosure of minutes and EAS records and reversing to order disclosure of the Strategic Plan, President's Reports, and other minute attachments. However, it affirmed the withholding of VFA pricing information and the denial of attorney's fees to York.

Open Meetings ActPublic Information ActGovernment TransparencyStudent LoansGovernmental RecordsCompetitive HarmDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
62
Case No. ADJ3299212
Regular
Oct 18, 2011

LISA WEILMANN vs. UNITED TEMPORARY SERVICE, TIG SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board opinion awards supplemental attorney's fees of $2,100.00 to applicant's counsel. This award stems from the Court of Appeal's denial of the defendant's petition for writ of review and its subsequent granting of the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801. The applicant's attorney requested this fee for six hours of work at $350 per hour, which the Board found reasonable. The award is against TIG Specialty Insurance Company.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSUPPLEMENTAL ATTORNEY'S FEESLABOR CODE § 5801Court of Appealpetition for writ of reviewremittiturapplicant's attorney requestreasonable feeTIG Specialty Insurance CompanyRisk Enterprise Management
References
1
Case No. ADJ3999556 (STK 0205067)
Regular
Aug 16, 2016

MARTIN ORNELAS vs. BEUTLER CORPORATION, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the defendant's writ of review, finding no reasonable basis for the petition and remanding for attorney's fees. Applicant's attorney sought $6,000 based on 15 hours of work, which the defendant contested due to a procedural argument. The Board reviewed the filings and found the requested fee award reasonable. Consequently, the defendant is ordered to pay applicant's attorney $6,000 for services related to the appellate proceedings.

Labor Code Section 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesReasonable BasisRemandApplicant's AttorneyDefendant's AnswerAppellate Court DocketVerified PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 10,486 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