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. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. ADJ2531693 (MON 0284829)
Regular
Feb 22, 2012

VIRGINIA SIEGEL vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES - EXTENSION DEPARTMENT BUSINESS, OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

This case involves the award of additional attorney's fees to applicant's counsel following a successful defense of a Petition for Writ of Review at the appellate level. The Court of Appeal had previously remanded the matter to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for the purpose of making this supplemental award. Applicant's attorney requested $2,400.00 for six hours of work at $400.00 per hour, plus $179.07 in costs. The WCAB found this amount reasonable given the attorney's extensive experience and the successful outcome. An award of $2,579.07 in appellate attorney's fees and costs was made against the defendant.

Labor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealSupplemental Attorney's FeeAppellate Attorney's FeeRemandWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReasonable Attorney FeesLegal ServicesPetition for Award of Attorney's Fee
References
3
Case No. AHM 108812 AHM 108813 AHM 108814
Regular
Nov 06, 2007

OLIVIA ZAVALA vs. METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT

This case involves an award of attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following a successful defense against the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the Board to determine reasonable attorney's fees for the applicant's counsel's services. The applicant's attorney requested $5,171.89, but both parties ultimately stipulated to a total of $5,000.00 for attorney's fees and appellate costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeeLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealStipulationAppellate CostsMetropolitan Water DistrictReasonable Attorney's Fees
References
1
Case No. ADJ1390531
Regular
Aug 06, 2015

SARITA JANE BISSETT GARCIA vs. PEACE AND JOY CARE CENTER, ILLINOIS MIDWEST INSURANCE AGENCY

This case involves a workers' compensation appeal where the Court of Appeal remanded the matter to the Board for attorney's fees. Defense counsel informed the Board that a total of $\$11,000.00$ in attorney's fees was agreed upon, with an initial payment of $\$7,500.00$ and an additional $\$3,500.00$. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an award for these agreed-upon appellate attorney's fees. This award is payable in addition to any compensation provided to the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealRemandAppellate Attorney's FeesPeace and Joy Care CenterVirginia Surety Inc.Marvin L. Mathis
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. ADJ2478986 (SAC 0326370)
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

LINDA FUNK vs. DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an award of additional attorney's fees to the applicant's attorneys following a successful defense of a Petition for Writ of Review. The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the Board to determine reasonable fees for appellate services. The applicant's attorneys requested $4,160.00, and the Board awarded $3,840.00, disallowing time spent on fee preparation. This award is made in addition to any other compensation owed to the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeePetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealLabor Code § 5801Supplemental AwardCertified Workers' Compensation SpecialistAppellate Attorney's FeesLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyDelta Dental Plan
References
2
Case No. ADJ9770975
Regular
Mar 13, 2020

GUSTAVO RUBALCAVA, vs. AMERJIT GILL AND COAST XPRESS AKA COAST EXPRESS, INC.,

This case concerns an award of additional attorney's fees to the applicant's attorney following a successful defense against the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Court of Appeal had remanded the matter for such an award. The Appeals Board awarded $20,500.00 in attorney's fees and $712.69 in costs, reducing the requested amounts due to duplicative entries and internal copying charges. The award is for services rendered in opposing the writ of review, considering the complexity of the issues and the quality of the appellate work.

Labor Code § 5801supplemental awardattorney's feeswrit of reviewFifth District Court of Appealverified petitionhourly rateappellate workreasonable feescomplexity of issues
References
2
Case No. FRE 192364, FRE 192365, FRE 198592
Regular
Sep 21, 2007

CAROL MCKINLEY vs. RAMALLAH, INC./GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves a request for additional attorney's fees and costs following a successful defense against a defendant's petition for writ of review. The Appeals Board reviewed the itemized hours and requested rate, disallowing time spent on specific tasks deemed clerical or administrative. Ultimately, the Board awarded $\$ 2,100.00$ in attorney's fees and $\$ 49.45$ in costs, recognizing the applicant's attorney's experience and the outcome of the appeal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealRemandLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Certified Workers' Compensation SpecialistHourly RateCosts on Appeal
References
4
Case No. ADJ2567272 (AHM 0105012)
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

, Applicant, FELIX NINO MOTA vs. ALLGREEN LANDSCAPE; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by FARA Adjusting Services

Applicant's attorneys requested $51,900 in attorney's fees under Labor Code Section 5801 for work related to a writ of review. The Appeals Board found the declarations supporting the request inadequate due to lack of itemization and justification for the hours and rates. Consequently, the Board may award a fee of up to $16,000, but reserves the right to award substantially less or nothing at all due to the potentially inflated nature of the initial request. Applicant's attorneys must provide detailed itemizations and show good cause to receive any fee.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feespetition for writ of reviewAppeals Boarddeclarationsitemized billingshourly ratecertified workers' compensation specialistclerical tasksunreasonably inflated
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 5,269 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