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
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. 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
Case No. ADJ3792740 (OAK 0325116)
Regular
Dec 12, 2008

BONNIE REDDRICK vs. TENET/DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant's attorney. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the determination of these costs following the denial of the defendant's petition for review. The Appeals Board awarded $152.21 in costs, representing verifiable delivery expenses, as in-house copying, mailing, and labor costs are considered overhead and not recoverable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Johnson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Supreme Court of CaliforniaItemized CostsDelivery CostsMailing CostsCopying Costs
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Wagner & Kopit

Order unanimously modified in the exercise of discretion by striking out the allowance for costs and disbursements and as so modified affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements of this appeal to the respondent. No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.

Appellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsOrder ModificationAffirmationJudicial DiscretionUnanimous DecisionAppellate CostsNo Opinion
References
0
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. 02 Civ. 8891
Regular Panel Decision

Bristol Investment Fund, Inc. v. Carnegie International Corp.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order, penned by Judge Scheindlin, addresses Bristol Investment Fund's application for attorneys' fees and costs. Previously, the court granted Bristol's summary judgment motion against Carnegie International Corporation on October 30, 2003, resulting in a judgment of $376,091.21. Bristol subsequently sought $17,816.35 for legal fees and expenses, citing various contractual agreements. Carnegie objected to the requested amount, challenging fees incurred after a settlement offer, the experience level of Bristol's attorneys, and the detail of certain disbursements. The court found Bristol's overall request reasonable and warranted, but disallowed costs related to word processing and secretarial work, categorizing them as unrecoverable overhead. Ultimately, the court awarded Bristol $16,711.65, comprising $15,753 in attorneys' fees and $958.65 in disbursements.

Attorneys' FeesSummary JudgmentContract DisputeLitigation CostsPrevailing PartyFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSettlement OfferOverhead CostsDisbursementsLegal Billing
References
9
Case No. 3-93-672-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1994

Employers Casualty Company Focus Healthcare Management, Inc. Genesys Cost Management Systems, Inc. Corporate Systems, Ltd. Employers National Risk Management Services, Inc. And Havis Wayne Dortch v. Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self Insurance Fund El Paso I.S.D. Irving I.S.D. Hico I.S.D. And Aransas Pass I.S.D.

This is an interlocutory appeal from a district court order granting class certification. The Texas Association of School Boards Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund and several independent school districts (appellees) sued Employers Casualty Company and other entities (appellants) alleging misrepresentation and breach-of-contract related to workers' compensation benefits and medical cost containment services. Appellants raised seven points of error regarding standing, the certification hearing, and the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding that the Fund had standing, the class certification hearing was proper, and the class satisfied the prerequisites and maintenance criteria of Rule 42, particularly under Rule 42(b)(4) for predominance and superiority of common issues.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealStandingNumerosityCommonalityTypicalityRepresentativenessRule 42Predominance
References
22
Case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Regular
Jan 07, 2011

JOYCE GUZMAN vs. MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant, Joyce Guzman. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Appeals Board's decision and the Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for review. Following this, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur awarding costs to the applicant under Labor Code section 5811. The applicant requested $2,686.60 in appellate costs, which the Appeals Board found reasonable and awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMilpitas Unified School DistrictKeenan & AssociatesAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Court of AppealRemittiturPetition for ReviewItemized RequestReasonable Costs
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Finerty v. Siegel

Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant to answer within ten days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry, upon payment of said costs and the costs awarded by the court at Special Term. No opinion.

Appellate ReviewCosts AwardedProcedural OrderLeave to AnswerSpecial Term CourtUnanimous DecisionCosts and Disbursements
References
0
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,231 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