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
May 01, 2005

In Re Balderas

This decision addresses post-confirmation attorneys' fees in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, using the Balderas case as a factual background. The debtors in the Balderas case sought modification of their plan due to payment defaults and requested $350 in attorney's fees for the motion. The court outlines the history of the Balderas' numerous modifications, moratoriums, and associated attorney fee awards, totaling $3,495, highlighting how these fees were paid out of plan distributions at the expense of creditors. The court analyzes sections 1326(b)(1) and 330(a)(4)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code to determine the reasonableness and payment method of such fees. Ultimately, the court establishes new rules for post-confirmation attorney fee awards in the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, including a $2,500 prima facie base fee, a $100 per month payment rate for additional fees, and specific guidelines for various types of motions. The current $350 fee request for the Balderas case's moratorium is approved but with caution against future similar requests.

BankruptcyChapter 13Attorneys' FeesPost-Confirmation FeesPlan ModificationCreditor DistributionsSecured ClaimsAdministrative ExpensesDebtor RepresentationFeasibility
References
26
Case No. Consolidated Chapter 13 Cases (e.g., 91-20422 to 97-36152)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Phillips

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses objections by chapter 13 trustees to the postpetition claims for attorney's fees and expenses filed by William A. Cohn, an attorney representing numerous chapter 13 debtors. Mr. Cohn had routinely filed these claims under 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(2), arguing it served as an alternative to the § 330 procedures for professional compensation. The Court found that § 1305(a)(2) is intended for exigent circumstances where prior trustee approval is impracticable, not for routine legal work, and that Mr. Cohn failed to meet its conditions. It emphasized that § 330, which requires notice, a hearing, and detailed documentation, is the appropriate procedural vehicle for approving attorney's fees to ensure reasonableness and benefit to the debtor. Consequently, the Court disallowed all of Mr. Cohn's postpetition claims filed under § 1305(a)(2), vacated prior administrative orders that had mistakenly allowed these claims, and ordered Mr. Cohn to either file proper § 330(a)(4)(B) applications with full time and expense documentation by July 31, 1998, or disgorge all received postconfirmation fees and expenses by August 14, 1998.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13 ProceedingsAttorney CompensationPostpetition ClaimsFee ApplicationsDisgorgement of FeesProcedural ComplianceProfessional EthicsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Errors
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Beecham

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses the application of Donna R. Beeeham for a waiver of the Chapter 7 filing fee. Ms. Beeeham, a debtor with a reported monthly income of $804 and expenses of $1075, had filed her petition along with the fee waiver application. A hearing was held on November 16, 1994, to assess her entitlement to an In Forma Pauperis waiver, during which she disclosed a pending Workers' Compensation claim and substantial medical debts. The court, presided over by Judge G. Harvey Boswell, ultimately denied the application, citing Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1006(b)(3). This rule mandates that the filing fee must be fully paid before an attorney receives payment for bankruptcy-related services, and Ms. Beeeham had paid her attorney a $500 fee, thus indicating an ability to pay the filing fee, even if borrowed. Consequently, she was ordered to pay the $160 filing fee within thirty days or file an installment payment application to prevent case dismissal.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyFiling Fee WaiverIn Forma PauperisBankruptcy ProcedureDebtor's Attorney FeesAbility to PayInstallment PaymentsCase Dismissal AvoidanceWestern District of TennesseeJudicial Conference Pilot Program
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yeshiva University v. New England Educational Institute, Inc.

In a Lanham Act action, defendants, who prevailed after a jury trial against plaintiff Yeshiva, sought approximately $50,000 in attorney's fees. The application presented a novel question: whether a prevailing defendant is entitled to fees when the plaintiff's liability claims were asserted in good faith but the damage claims were grossly exaggerated. The court first affirmed the applicability of the Lanham Act's attorney fee provision, § 35(a), to actions involving unregistered marks, citing precedent. Despite acknowledging the plaintiff's highly exaggerated damage claims, the court determined that the case, which was close on the merits regarding the initial copying allegations, did not meet the 'exceptional cases' standard required for awarding attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant. Consequently, the defendants' application for attorney's fees was denied.

Lanham ActAttorney's FeesPrevailing DefendantExceptional CasesUnregistered MarkDamage ClaimsExaggerated DamagesGood Faith LitigationJury VerdictNon-profit Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
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

King v. Allied Vision, Ltd.

This case involves a plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees following a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff Stephen King sought fees due to defendant New Line Cinema's contempt of court for numerous violations of a Final Consent Decree concerning the misattribution of 'The Lawnmower Man' film. The District Court had previously found the defendant in contempt and awarded fees in 1994 and 1995. The Second Circuit affirmed some parts of the 1994 order but vacated others, along with the entire 1995 order, remanding the attorney's fees issue for reconsideration, specifically questioning the willfulness of the noncompliance. Upon review, this court concluded that while the defendant's conduct was negligent and contumacious, it did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard for willfulness required for an award of attorney's fees for civil contempt under Second Circuit law. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees was denied.

Civil ContemptAttorney's FeesWillfulness StandardSecond Circuit RemandConsent Decree ViolationsLanham ActFilm MisattributionThe Lawnmower ManInjunctive ReliefCompensatory Damages
References
27
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

Claim of Zizolfo v. Western Electric Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on November 29, 1978, concerning an attorney's fee. The claimant's attorney, designated as the appellant, sought an additional $1,500 fee, contending that the initial $500 awarded by a referee was inadequate. The Board, however, determined that the appellant had been sufficiently compensated for services rendered. The appellate court, referencing section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that its determination on attorney's fees would only be disturbed if the fee was arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably low. Finding no such grounds, the court upheld the Board's original ruling.

Attorney's FeesAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFee DisputeJudicial DiscretionCompensation AwardsLegal ServicesAffirmationAdministrative Appeal
References
2
Case No. 03-27303
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2004

In Re Ambotiene

Richard J. McCord, as Chapter 7 trustee for Aldona Ambotiene, sought attorneys' fees and costs from Grand Street Realty, LLC and its counsel due to their obstruction of the Trustee's efforts to inspect the Debtor's assets. The Landlord repeatedly refused access to the premises, forcing the Trustee to file a motion to compel. The Court found that the Landlord and its counsel did not act in good faith and caused the Trustee to incur unnecessary expenses in fulfilling his statutory and fiduciary duties. Consequently, the Court granted the Trustee an award of $6,987 in attorneys' fees and $166.79 in costs, totaling $7,253.79, to be paid jointly and severally by the Landlord and its counsel.

Attorneys' FeesCosts AwardedChapter 7 BankruptcyTrustee DutiesCreditor ObstructionSanctionsBankruptcy Code Section 105Good Faith RequirementAsset InspectionFiduciary Duty
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 6,335 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