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. SA:11-CV-788
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2013

Davis v. Perry

Plaintiffs, including Wendy Davis and LULAC, filed motions for attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs after successfully challenging Texas's Senate redistricting plan (Plan S148). They argued the plan diluted minority voting strength and lacked preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. The Court initially enjoined Plan S148 and implemented an interim plan (S172), which was later adopted by the Texas Legislature. Despite the Supreme Court's *Shelby County* decision invalidating a key VRA section, the Court found plaintiffs to be 'prevailing parties' due to the significant judicially sanctioned interim relief. The Court granted the fee motions in part, adjusting the requested amounts based on the reasonableness of hours, hourly rates, and allowable expenses, while disallowing fees for unverified support staff and clerical tasks.

Attorneys' FeesRedistrictingVoting Rights ActSection 5 VRASection 2 VRAFourteenth AmendmentFifteenth AmendmentInterim ReliefPrevailing PartyLodestar Method
References
84
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

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

in the Interest of L. Z., M. H. and N. U., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services

This document is a "Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond" designed for use in Texas courts. It requires the individual filing the lawsuit (plaintiff) to provide their full legal name, date of birth, home and mailing addresses, phone number, and email. The form also asks for information about financial dependents. The applicant must indicate their legal representation status, specifically if they are represented by legal aid or were deemed financially eligible but could not be taken on as a client. Additionally, the statement requires disclosure of any needs-based public benefits received. A significant portion of the form focuses on the applicant's financial situation, including monthly income sources and amounts, the total value of their property (cash, bank accounts, vehicles, other assets), and a detailed breakdown of monthly expenses such as rent, food, utilities, medical costs, and transportation. Finally, the applicant must list any outstanding debts and can attach additional supporting facts. The document concludes with a declaration under penalty of perjury, affirming the truthfulness of the information provided and stating the inability to afford court costs or an appeal bond.

Court CostsAppeal BondIndigencyFinancial DisclosureLegal AidPublic BenefitsIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationDebt Listing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1989

In Re Microwave Products of America, Inc.

Joseph Scallon, former president of Microwave Products of America (MPA), sought payment for post-petition salary and expenses as an administrative claim after MPA filed for bankruptcy. He claimed extensive hours and travel costs for his services as president and CEO, along with two weeks of severance pay. Presiding Judge Bernice Bouie Donald meticulously scrutinized Scallon's application due to his fiduciary role. The court allowed a salary claim of $3,000 for one week of necessary services rendered to preserve the estate. However, Scallon's $6,000 severance pay claim was reclassified as a non-priority general unsecured claim, as it was deemed a gratuitous promise rather than a bargained-for or necessary expense. Additionally, $1,861.71 in post-petition expenses was allowed as a priority claim, contingent upon the submission of proper documentation to the U.S. Trustee and payment upon plan confirmation.

Bankruptcy AdministrationAdministrative ClaimsPriority ClaimsSeverance PayPost-petition ExpensesFiduciary DutyOfficer CompensationDebtor-in-possessionEmployee ClaimsClaim Scrutiny
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yogurt Culture, Inc. and Michelle Anderssen v. Shannon A. Lang, PLLC

This document is a form titled 'Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond.' It allows an individual (Plaintiff) to declare their financial inability to pay court costs or an appeal bond in a lawsuit against a Defendant. The form collects personal information of the filer, including dependents, details about legal aid representation, public benefits received, monthly income and its sources, property value, monthly expenses, and any outstanding debts. It concludes with a declaration under penalty of perjury.

financial inabilitycourt costsappeal bondindigencypublic benefitsincomeexpensesTexascivil procedurecourt form
References
0
Case No. 05-19-00728-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Katherine Mitchell v. Dallas Housing Authority

This document is a 'Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond' filed by an individual named Kyle Fitz. In this statement, Mr. Fitz declares his financial situation to the court, providing details on his monthly income, property value, and monthly expenses. He also addresses whether he is represented by legal aid and if he receives public benefits, stating he does not receive needs-based public benefits and is not represented by legal aid. The purpose of this statement is to demonstrate his indigence and inability to cover court-related costs.

Financial HardshipCourt CostsAppeal BondIndigencyLegal Aid EligibilityIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationDebt DisclosurePublic Benefits
References
0
Case No. ADJ4280526 (OXN 0148727)
Regular
Dec 09, 2013

CLARA ARBIZU vs. WESTAC, INC., WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant's request for the defendant to prepay the cost of a vocational expert. The Appeals Board affirmed the original decision that defendants are not obligated to prepay these expenses. However, the Board clarified that vocational expert costs are considered medical-legal expenses under Labor Code section 4620 et seq., and defendants are liable for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred for proving or disproving a contested claim. The parties are ordered to proceed with a vocational expert evaluation, with the defendant ultimately responsible for the costs.

ArbizuVocational expertPrepaymentMedical-legal expenseLabor Code Section 4620Labor Code Section 4621Labor Code Section 5811Labor Code Section 5708Ogilvie analysisWhole Person Impairment
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,387 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