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. ADJ6550105 ADJ6777358 ADJ6777361 ADJ6976802
Regular
Oct 03, 2014

ESTHER GARCIA vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an earlier order allowing attorney fees. The Board found that Labor Code section 5710(b) only authorizes fees for depositions of the injured employee or their dependents, not for depositions of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). Therefore, applicant's counsel was not entitled to fees for attending the QME's deposition. The Board denied the petition for attorney's fees.

Labor Code $\S 5710$Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Attorney's FeesDepositionInjured EmployeeDependent BenefitsWCJContingency Fee
References
0
Case No. 3-90-281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1992

Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland v. Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham

This case concerns an appeal by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) against Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham regarding Fidelity's liability as a bonding agent for attorney's fees. The dispute originated from an earlier case where a newly formed hospital district in Lee County was deemed unconstitutional, and its trustees were found to have violated the Open Meetings Act, leading to an award of attorney's fees against them. As the hospital district had no assets, Concerned Taxpayers sued Fidelity as the surety on the trustees' public official bonds. The trial court held Fidelity liable for the attorney's fees from the prior case but denied Concerned Taxpayers' request for attorney's fees in the current litigation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, ruling that public official bonds broadly cover damages, including attorney's fees resulting from the unfaithful performance of duties, and that the trustees' Open Meetings Act violations constituted such unfaithful performance. The court also found Concerned Taxpayers to be incidental beneficiaries in the current suit, thus not entitled to attorney's fees.

Public Official BondsSurety LiabilityAttorney's Fees RecoveryDeclaratory Judgment ActOpen Meetings Act ViolationDe Facto Officer DoctrineStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureSummary Judgment AppealHospital District Formation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) against a summary judgment holding it liable, as a bonding agent, for attorney's fees. These fees were awarded in a prior lawsuit against its principals, the trustees of the Lee County Hospital District. The Concerned Taxpayers of Lee County, Inc. and Mike Cunningham had successfully challenged the hospital district's formation and the trustees' actions, leading to a judgment for attorney's fees which the defunct district could not satisfy. Fidelity argued that the bonds did not explicitly cover attorney's fees and that the trustees had not unfaithfully performed their duties because the district was void from inception. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Fidelity's bonds broadly covered damages from the trustees' unfaithful performance as de facto officers, which included violations of the Open Meetings Act. However, the court denied Concerned Taxpayers' request for attorney's fees in the current litigation.

Bonding Agent LiabilityAttorney's FeesPublic Official BondsFidelity BondsSummary JudgmentDe Facto OfficersUnfaithful PerformanceOpen Meetings ActHospital DistrictThird-Party Beneficiary
References
16
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

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
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. 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

Baird v. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

Plaintiffs Rachel M. Baird and Bonnie Porter sued their former employer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, alleging gender discrimination for being placed on a 'non-partnership track' while men were on a 'partnership track.' They initially sought $1.25 million but accepted Rule 68 offers of judgment for $37,500 each, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The court found them 'prevailing parties' but significantly reduced their requested attorneys' fees of $191,048.33 to $54,723.93, and costs to $7,506.23. This reduction was due to their limited success and weak evidence supporting their discrimination and constructive discharge claims. The court noted inconsistencies in Baird's deposition and Porter's personal reasons for leaving the firm, suggesting they realized their unlikelihood of prevailing.

gender discriminationequal pay actTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Lawattorneys' feesRule 68 offer of judgmentprevailing partylodestar calculationlimited successfee reduction
References
38
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,671 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