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. 01-02-01008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2003

Landmark Chevrolet, Corp. & Bill Heard Chevrolet, Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, 'the dealerships') against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company ('Universal'). The dealerships were sued in two underlying class-action lawsuits by customers alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud due to being charged a 'Consumer Services Fee' for a worthless coupon book. Universal, the dealerships' insurer, declined to defend them under their Statute and Title E&O (STEO) coverage, which only covered claims arising from violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws. Universal then filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment in Universal’s favor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the 'eight-corners rule' and concluding that the underlying petitions did not allege facts indicating violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws, and declined to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-Lending LawsTruth-in-Leasing LawsDeclaratory JudgmentClass Action LawsuitsTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer Services FeeAppellate Review
References
5
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. POM 0261983
Regular
Feb 08, 2009

SARA LARA vs. POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE/BROADSPIRE

The lien claimant, Premier Outpatient Surgery Center, sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision that reduced their billed costs for applicant's medical treatment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the judge's finding that the billed costs were unreasonable and that the lien claimant failed to present a persuasive case supporting their charges. The Board also found no evidence of a violation of Labor Code section 4603.2 regarding timely reimbursement.

Kunz v. PattersonWCABLien claimantAmended Findings of FactReasonable and necessary costsBilled costs unreasonableStipulations with Request for AwardIndustrial injuryBilateral upper extremitiesNeck injury
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dajbabic v. Rick's Café

This action was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) by a plaintiff, a former waitperson, seeking unpaid wages from the defendant restaurant owners. The parties settled the wage claim for $2,000, leaving the issue of attorney's fees and costs for the court to decide. Plaintiff's counsel requested $41,020 in attorney's fees and $4,632 in costs. The court, however, found counsel's success limited and noted his primary motivation was his own fees, not maximizing client benefit. Consequently, the court significantly reduced the requested hourly rates and billable hours due to vague entries, unreasonableness, duplicative work, and improper billing for clerical tasks, also limiting costs to those incurred before a specific cutoff date. The court ultimately awarded the plaintiff $15,500 in attorney's fees and $460 in costs.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Attorney's FeesCosts AwardWage DisputeUnpaid WagesWaitpersonLodestar MethodBilling PracticesExcessive Litigation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2003

Master-Built Construction Co. v. Thorne

This case involves an appeal by Master-Built Construction Co., Inc. (the contractor), from an order that granted summary judgment to Oakleigh B. Thorne (the plaintiff) in the sum of $574,033.86. The dispute arises from a "cost-plus" construction agreement where the contractor allegedly over-billed for costs associated with subcontracted workers, independent labor, and its own employees, and improperly billed for owned scaffolding equipment. The Supreme Court found the agreement unambiguously limited the contractor's ability to pass along costs to only those actually incurred and precluded billing for owned equipment. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Thorne made a prima facie showing of over-billing and improper billing by the contractor.

Breach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentConstruction AgreementCost-Plus ContractContract InterpretationOver-billingAppellate ReviewDutchess CountyAffirmed Decision
References
3
Case No. 07-CV-3256 (JFB) (AYS)
Regular Panel Decision

Houston v. Cotter

Plaintiff Robert Houston filed this action against Thomas Cotter, John Weiss, and the County of Suffolk, alleging excessive force and Due Process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A jury found Officer Cotter liable for excessive force and the County of Suffolk liable for a Due Process claim, awarding a total of $30,000 in damages to Houston. The court, presided over by District Judge Joseph F. Bianco, then considered Houston's motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Finding the requested hours and costs excessive due to overstaffing, vague billing, and unreasonable expenditures, the court applied significant reductions. Ultimately, the court awarded Houston $346,479.55 in attorneys' fees and $80,091.90 in costs against the liable defendants.

Section 1983Excessive ForceDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesLitigation CostsCivil RightsDamages AwardJury VerdictLodestar MethodBilling Records
References
95
Case No. 3;15-cv-00048
Regular Panel Decision

Rouse v. Target Corp.

Plaintiffs Bobby Rouse and Nicole Garza initiated a collective action against Target Corporation, alleging misclassification under the FLSA regarding overtime pay. Following Rule 68 Offers, a judgment was entered. Plaintiffs then sought attorney's fees and costs. The Court, presided over by Judge George C. Hanks, Jr., reviewed the requested fees for attorneys Rhonda H. Wills and Genevieve B. Estrada, finding their hourly rates reasonable but noting issues with documentation, excessive, and duplicative hours, leading to a 50% reduction in billed attorney hours. Ultimately, the motion was granted in part and denied in part, awarding Plaintiffs $23,750.00 in fees and $1,161.73 in court costs.

Attorney's FeesCostsFLSAFair Labor Standards ActOvertime PayCollective ActionRule 68 Offer of JudgmentLodestar MethodBilling JudgmentReasonable Hourly Rate
References
35
Case No. ADJ7332232
Regular
Jul 01, 2014

Domingo Mogo vs. Cardenas Markets Inc.

This case involves a lien claimant, True Scan Legal Copy Service, seeking reconsideration of defense counsel's Bill of Particulars for defense costs. The lien claimant objected to the reasonableness of the billed expenses, arguing they included costs incurred prior to the lien trial date. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because a Bill of Particulars is not a final order subject to reconsideration. The Board noted that the lien claimant's petition should be treated as an objection to the trial judge's prior notice of intent to impose sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantBill of ParticularsDefense CostsWCJLabor Code Section 5813Title 8 California Code of Regulations 10561Final OrderSubstantive Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ochal v. Television Technology Corp.

David Ochal suffered severe electrocution injuries in a work-related accident in February 1988. His personal injury action was settled by stipulation in November 1999, which included a structured settlement and an agreement by a third-party defendant to pay $50,000, waive a substantial workers' compensation lien, and cover pre-settlement medical bills. In May 2004, Ochal moved to enforce the stipulation, seeking payment for approximately $20,000 in medical bills and a pro rata share of litigation costs from the third-party defendant's workers' compensation carrier. The Supreme Court denied his motion, and Ochal appealed. The appellate court affirmed the denial, ruling that Ochal had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by submitting medical bills 4.5 years post-settlement and that his claim for pro rata litigation costs lacked merit due to his failure to reserve this right during the settlement.

Structured SettlementStipulation of SettlementContract InterpretationImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingWorkers' Compensation LienMedical BillsPro Rata Share of Litigation CostsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractWaiver of Rights
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,530 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