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

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Perrin v. Builders Resource, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the reimbursement rate for home health aide services provided to a claimant by their sister. Initially, the carrier denied payment but was later directed to pay. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge set the reimbursement rate at $12 per hour for services starting in 2011, which the Board affirmed. The claimant appealed, solely challenging this rate. The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the claimant was not an aggrieved party concerning the reimbursement rate, as the dispute was between the care provider (the sister) and the carrier. The court affirmed that the claimant received the care sought and could not raise issues on behalf of the care provider.

Workers' CompensationHome Health Aide ServicesReimbursement RateAppeal DismissalAggrieved PartyCare ProviderWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ProcedureNew York LawCarrier Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employee's Pension Plan

Plaintiff Gary Hamilton, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on June 26, 2014, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), alleging improper denial of pension benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel. He sought additional credited service for his tenure at non-foundry plants, contending that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should modify his pension calculation as if his entire service had been at a designated foundry location. The defendants, General Motors Corporation Hourly-Rate Employee’s Pension Plan and General Motors, LLC, argued that the Plan's terms unambiguously require actual employment in designated foundry classifications for enhanced benefits and that the MOU's purpose was solely to facilitate employee transfers, not to alter pension benefits. The Court, applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, found the defendants' interpretation of both the Plan and the MOU to be reasonable. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's claims in their entirety.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyEquitable EstoppelSummary JudgmentPlan AdministratorCredited ServiceFoundry JobsMemorandum of UnderstandingArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anthony L. Jordan Health Corp. v. Axelrod

The Anthony L. Jordan Health Center, a not-for-profit corporation, challenged the New York State Department of Health's recalculation of its Medicaid reimbursement rates for the 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 periods. Following an appeal, the parties entered into a stipulation agreement. However, the Department, while recalculating the rates in accordance with the stipulation, unilaterally changed the group composition, resulting in a significant negative adjustment and recoupment from Jordan. The court determined that this regrouping constituted an 'error of judgment,' not a permissible correction for mathematical error or an audit finding. Consequently, the court found that the Department did not have the right to retroactively adjust the rates based on this discretionary change. The petition was granted.

Medicaid ReimbursementRate RecalculationAdministrative ReviewStipulation AgreementError of JudgmentGroup CompositionRetroactive AdjustmentHealth Care LawJudicial ReviewDepartment of Health
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frances Schervier Home & Hospital Inc. v. Axelrod

This case concerns an appeal regarding Medicaid reimbursement rates for a residential health care facility. The Department of Health (DOH) disallowed certain costs from the petitioner's 1981 cost report, affecting 1983-1985 rates. Petitioner appealed, arguing it was a data error, not an alternative cost allocation method requiring prior approval. After DOH denied the appeal, the Supreme Court annulled DOH's determination, ruling in favor of the petitioner. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding DOH's interpretation of its regulations regarding data error corrections to be irrational.

Medicaid reimbursement ratescost reportDepartment of Healthresidential health care facilityCPLR article 78administrative lawdata errorcost allocationagency interpretationirrational interpretation
References
2
Case No. No. 13-7019
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (In re Lopez)

This case is a Memorandum Opinion concerning Plaintiff Marcos F. Lopez's application for compensation and reimbursement of expenses for attorney's fees incurred during a motion for sanctions against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA). The plaintiff's counsel, Kellett & Bartholow PLLC, sought $176,967.50 in fees and $2,023.41 in expenses, but PRA opposed the amount. The court determined the reasonableness of attorney's fees using the lodestar method, which involved calculating prevailing hourly rates and reasonable hours, and considering Johnson factors. The court allowed fees for defending PRA's motion for leave to appeal but disallowed fees for prosecuting the fee application itself, for issues on which the plaintiff did not prevail, for vague time entries, and for certain interoffice communications. Ultimately, the court granted in part and denied in part the application, awarding Applicant $117,760.60 in fees and $2,194.64 in expenses, totaling $119,952.24.

Attorney's FeesSanctionsDiscovery ViolationsLodestar MethodBankruptcy LawConsumer LawBilling JudgmentHourly RatesExpenses ReimbursementInterlocutory Appeal
References
38
Case No. ADJ17547374
Regular
Oct 16, 2025

WARREN P. HARVEY vs. SOCAL MACHINE, INC., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered applicant Warren P. Harvey's petition for reconsideration regarding the equitable hourly reimbursement rates for in-home health care provided by his spouse, asserting errors in the WCJ's rate calculation and attorneys' fees. After an unsuccessful settlement conference, the parties filed Stipulations With Request for Award, agreeing to permanent total disability and further medical treatment for the applicant, though these stipulations did not resolve the reconsideration issues. The Board approved these stipulations, finding them adequate and in the applicant's best interest, and issued an award based upon them, which included specific disability indemnity, medical treatment, and attorney's fees. The Board also commended the parties for resolving some important issues and urged them to continue efforts on the remaining disputes.

Equitable hourly reimbursement ratesIn-home health careCaregiver dutiesNursing dutiesCommunity HHC providerPetition for reconsiderationStipulations With Request for AwardPermanent total disabilityTemporary disability indemnityAttorneys' fee
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2008

New Franklin Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing v. Novello

Six private residential health care facilities, including New Franklin Center for Rehabilitation & Nursing and the Bayview petitioners, appealed determinations by the Commissioner of Health. They challenged the removal of Medicaid reimbursement rate adjustments for recruitment and retention of nonsupervisory health care workers, which occurred after they reclassified nursing personnel expenses as 'fees' following a leasing arrangement with Budget Services, Inc. The Supreme Court dismissed one proceeding as untimely and affirmed the Commissioner's decision for the other, finding it consistent with Public Health Law § 2808 (18). The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, upholding the Commissioner's interpretation and emphasizing the statute's intent to ensure proper use of funds.

Medicaid ReimbursementHealth Care FacilitiesCPLR Article 78Recruitment and Retention FundsPublic Health LawStatutory InterpretationAdministrative AppealsTimeliness DoctrineStatute of LimitationsJudicial Deference
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1992

Camardo v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan

Plaintiff John A. Camardo, injured in 1983, sought disability pension benefits from the General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan after being declared a 'voluntary quit' by General Motors Corporation. The Plan denied his application for forms, leading to a lawsuit under ERISA. Magistrate Judge Heckman recommended denying the defendant's motions for dismissal and summary judgment and awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff. District Judge Arcara adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissed the defendant's objections for procedural non-compliance, and ordered the Plan Administrator to provide the plaintiff with the necessary application forms for disability pension benefits.

ERISADisability PensionSummary Judgment MotionLocal Rule ViolationReport and RecommendationAdministrative RemediesStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Quit ClauseCollective BargainingEmployee Benefits
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1987

Richmond Memorial Hospital & Health Center v. Axelrod

The petitioner, a hospital not a member of the League of Voluntary Hospitals, sought to increase its 1983 third-party reimbursement rates from the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health. This application was based on a 'trend factor' applicable to League members, stemming from a collective bargaining agreement which the petitioner also adopted. The Commissioner denied the request, citing the petitioner's non-membership in the League. The Supreme Court annulled this determination, directing the use of the League trend factor. On appeal, the judgment was modified: the annulment of the Commissioner's arbitrary determination was affirmed, but the direction to use the specific trend factor was deleted, and the case was remitted for recalculation based on permissible factors.

CPLR Article 78Third-Party Reimbursement RatesTrend FactorMedicaid RatesBlue Cross RatesWorkers' Compensation RatesNo-Fault RatesPublic Health LawArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial Review
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,599 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