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
Nov 08, 2012

Claim of Bailey v. Achieve Rehab & Nursing

Claimant, a nursing assistant, was granted workers' compensation benefits for a permanent partial disability. Following an independent medical examination, the employer's workers' compensation carrier repeatedly attempted to reopen the claim, citing counsel's failure to provide updates on claimant's job search. The Workers' Compensation Board denied these requests, emphasizing the lack of sufficient supporting evidence beyond non-response. Consequently, the Board assessed a $1,000 cost against the carrier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) for pursuing proceedings without reasonable grounds after being clearly advised on evidentiary requirements. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the Board's assessment of costs.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWork SearchReopening ClaimCosts AssessmentAbuse of DiscretionIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCarrier Responsibility
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Maiorano v. Plumbing

Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits after being injured as a plumber in New York City. Despite residing in Brooklyn, the claimant sought to have hearings in White Plains, Westchester County, for convenience. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied this request, and the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, additionally assessing $500 in costs against the claimant’s counsel under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board Chair has authority over hearing locations and the claimant failed to provide a reasonable basis for the change of venue. The court also upheld the penalty assessment, finding substantial evidence for the Board's determination that the request lacked a reasonable basis.

Workers' Compensation LawVenue ChangeAppellate ReviewProcedural DenialCost AssessmentJudicial AuthorityAdministrative DiscretionClaimant RightsBoard DecisionAffirmation
References
3
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. 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

David Berry v. Faith Temple Ministry Int

This document is a form titled 'Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond'. It is designed for individuals to declare their financial situation to the court, seeking to waive court costs or the requirement of an appeal bond. The form requests comprehensive personal information, including details of dependents, any public benefits received, a detailed breakdown of monthly income and its sources, an assessment of property value, and an itemized list of monthly expenses. The form concludes with a declaration under penalty of perjury, affirming the accuracy of the provided financial information and the applicant's inability to afford court costs or an appeal bond.

Financial HardshipCourt Costs WaiverAppeal Bond WaiverIndigency FormPublic AssistanceIncome DeclarationExpense DeclarationAffidavit of IndigencyCivil ProcedureTexas Courts
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Workers Colony Corp. v. Mills

The order was affirmed with $20 costs and disbursements, and no opinion was provided. Judges Dore, Cohn, Callahan, and Peek were present. Presiding Judge Martin, P.J., dissented from the decision, voting to reverse the order and reinstate the assessments made by the Board of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York.

Costs and DisbursementsAppellate ReviewTax AssessmentsDissenting OpinionJudicial Panel DecisionNew York CityAppeals
References
1
Case No. M2004-00846-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2005

State of Tennessee v. Wanda Dean Wallace

The State of Tennessee appealed the assessment of discretionary costs in an eminent domain action against property owner Wanda Dean Wallace. The Circuit Court had awarded Wallace discretionary costs after a jury found her entitled to damages exceeding the State's initial tender. The State argued its exemption from such costs in eminent domain cases. The Court of Appeals agreed, concluding that a 1994 amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-17-812 removed the express statutory authority to assess discretionary costs against the State. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Circuit Court's judgment and vacated the $5,650 award of discretionary costs against the State.

eminent domaindiscretionary costsstatutory interpretationappealTennessee lawgovernmental immunitysovereigntyexpert witness feesappraisal feesrule of civil procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Pierce

Erne-terio Corona, a minor, sustained a forearm injury while employed by non-subscriber Joe Pierce. The trial court initially awarded Corona $24,025 and assessed all costs against Pierce. The court of appeals later reduced the judgment and retaxed costs, assessing half against Corona and half against Pierce, a decision found contrary to Texas Rule 131. Consequently, a higher court granted the application for writ of error, modifying the appellate judgment to tax all trial court costs against Pierce, and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationRetaxing CostsAppellate ProcedureTrial Court CostsCivil ProcedureEmployer LiabilityNon-subscriberWrit of ErrorJudgment Modification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Insurance Association, Inc. v. State of New York

The New York Insurance Association, Inc. and several insurance companies challenged assessment fees levied by the Department of Financial Services (DFS) and its predecessor, arguing the inclusion of 'sub-allocated programs' costs and the transfer of unused assessment funds to the State's general fund were unconstitutional. Plaintiffs contended these were unauthorized taxes and constituted a taking of private property. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that the inclusion of sub-allocated program costs was statutorily mandated and not arbitrary. It also found that the relevant law did not unlawfully delegate taxing power and that the assessments were regulatory fees, not taxes, thus constitutional provisions were inapplicable. Furthermore, the court determined that the insurers' right to a refund or credit had not vested before the statutes authorizing the transfers were enacted, negating the takings claims.

Insurance AssessmentsRegulatory FeesState BudgetFiscal PolicyConstitutional LawTaxation PowerTakings ClauseProperty RightsDepartment of Financial ServicesNew York State
References
43
Case No. ADJ2151993 (SFO 0507276)
Regular
May 18, 2018

RICHARD JOHNSON vs. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF PACIFICA

This case concerns the award of appellate costs to the City of Pacifica. The Court of Appeal previously affirmed a decision in Pacifica's favor and ordered the City of South San Francisco (CSSF) to bear Pacifica's costs. Pacifica subsequently submitted a verified petition for costs totaling $1,425.00, which included electronic filing and paper copy expenses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found Pacifica's requested costs reasonable and awarded them against CSSF.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturFirst District Court of AppealPetition for ReconsiderationArbitratorPetition for CostsAppellate CostsReimbursementVerified PetitionSubstantiation of Costs
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,337 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