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. MON 0331606
Regular
Aug 08, 2007

DEAN HARVEY vs. PES PAYROLL

This case involves a request for additional attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code § 5801 following a successful appeal by the applicant. The Appeals Board awarded applicant's attorney $3,500 in fees and $96.98 in costs, finding the requested hours for drafting the response excessive and disallowing paralegal fees. The Board determined the case was of average complexity and set the hourly rate at $250 for a certified specialist.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealAppeals BoardSupplemental AwardReasonable FeesHourly RateCertified SpecialistAppellate Complexity
References
3
Case No. ADJ2340102 (LAO 0751270) ADJ4406096 (LAO 0784412)
Regular
Apr 27, 2017

JOSE MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ADVENTIST HEALTH

This case involves an award of additional attorney's fees for applicant's counsel in the California Court of Appeal. The court remanded the matter for supplemental fees after the defendant's unsuccessful Petition for Writ of Review. While applicant's attorney sought $11,480.00 in fees, the Board found this excessive and awarded $8,000.00 based on a review of the appellate work and the contentious history of the litigation. The Board also awarded the requested costs of $67.58, totaling $8,067.58 in additional appellate attorney's fees and costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesItemization of Attorney's FeesExcessive Fee RequestReasonable Fee DeterminationCase-by-Case Basis
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1996

Prior v. County of Saratoga

Plaintiff commenced an action alleging excessive force during his arrest by Shawn Nolan and Keith Clinton of the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department, claiming battery and Federal civil rights violations under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. A jury found Nolan used excessive force but did not intentionally violate plaintiff's rights, awarding $5,000 for pain and suffering and $429.66 for medical expenses. Plaintiff then moved for counsel fees as a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1988, and Supreme Court awarded $7,500. Both parties appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the plaintiff was a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1988 because his Federal constitutional claims met the two-pronged Gibbs test, and the reduction of the requested counsel fee was an appropriate exercise of discretion given the limited success on the nonconstitutional issue.

Excessive ForceCivil Rights4th Amendment5th Amendment14th AmendmentBatteryCounsel FeesPrevailing PartyFederal ClaimsState Claims
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re South Shore Tobacco & Candy Co.

The coassignees moved for an order settling their final account, fixing their commissions, and granting allowances to their attorneys and accountants. Arthur Kerner, Esq., representing himself and unsecured creditors, opposed the requested amounts, deeming them excessive and questioning the administration of the estate. The court had previously denied the motion and requested additional documentation and explanations. After reviewing new submissions and the case file, the court largely sided with the objector, significantly reducing the requested commissions and fees for the coassignees, their attorneys, and accountants based on established guidelines for economy and efficiency in estate administration.

Assignment for Benefit of CreditorsCommissionsAttorneys' FeesAccountants' FeesEstate AdministrationDebtor and Creditor LawJudicial ReviewCompensation GuidelinesFiduciary DutiesObjections to Fees
References
16
Case No. ADJ4655433 (STK 0183897) ADJ4135432 (STK 0183898)
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

CARMELA GARCIA vs. E & J GALLO WINERY, P.S.I.

This case concerns a request for supplemental attorney's fees following an unsuccessful petition for writ of review by defendant E & J Gallo Winery. The Court of Appeal previously granted the applicant's request for fees under Labor Code § 5801 and remanded the matter. The applicant's attorney requested $3,150.00 for services related to answering the petition, which the defendant did not dispute in amount, only in principle. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the requested amount reasonable and issued a supplemental award of $3,150.00 in attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801attorney's feessupplemental awardpetition for writ of reviewremittiturreasonable basisapplicantdefendantE & J Gallo Winery
References
1
Case No. AHM 0097527
Regular
Jun 04, 2008

WILLIAM DAVID SCOTT vs. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Following a remand from the Court of Appeal for an award of attorney's fees and costs, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant's counsel $2,500 for appellate attorney's fees and $421.68 for costs. The Board found the requested 25 hours excessive for an answer of average complexity, awarding fees based on 10 hours at $250/hour, considering the attorney's experience, the results obtained, and the case's limited complexity. Costs for printing were allowed upon review of provided receipts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesCostsLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly RateCase ComplexityItemization
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
Case No. ADJ4039795
Regular
Feb 03, 2010

Errol Holmes vs. SHELL OIL COMPANY, ESIS/EMPLOYERS SELF-INSURANCE SERVICES

Applicant's attorney sought additional fees for opposing Shell Oil's writ of review, which the Court of Appeal granted, remanding for supplemental fees. The Appeals Board initially awarded $3,000 based on estimated hours and a reasonable rate after no response was received to a request for itemized fees. The applicant's attorney then claimed he did not receive the request and sought $5,751.57 in fees. Despite treating his letter as a reconsideration petition, the Appeals Board reviewed the matter again and reaffirmed the $3,000 award, finding it adequate and denying any additional compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardErrol HolmesShell Oil CompanyESISEmployers Self-Insurance ServicesPetition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental Attorney FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code § 5902
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re of the Arbitration between Town of Evans & International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied its petition to stay arbitration, granted respondent's counterclaim to compel arbitration, and denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees and sanctions. The petitioner had terminated an accountant, Elmar Kiefer, for alleged sexual abuse and misuse of resources. Respondent filed a grievance on Kiefer's behalf, leading to a demand for arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. Petitioner sought to stay arbitration, arguing it was against public policy as an arbitrator might reinstate Kiefer. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the public policy argument was premature and that courts should not pre-emptively assume an arbitrator will exceed their powers or violate public policy. The court also denied attorney's fees and sanctions for both parties.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementSexual HarassmentMisconductAttorney's FeesSanctionsAppellate ReviewGrievanceEmployment Termination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maxwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This is an appeal concerning the award of counsel fees in a no-fault automobile accident case. The plaintiff appealed the Trial Term's decision denying an excess counsel fee award, which was initially granted at the statutory maximum. Plaintiff argued that the case involved novel issues related to an exclusion clause and the basis for disclaimer under No-Fault Law, warranting higher fees. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Term's decision, finding that the issues, while skillfully handled, were not sufficiently novel or unique to justify an excess fee under 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (8) (vii), as they relied on established contract law and statutory construction. The court also rejected the plaintiff's constitutional challenge regarding the impairment of contracts, clarifying that the fee limitation only applies to the insurer, not the client, and dismissed an ex parte communication claim as outside the record.

No-Fault BenefitsCounsel FeesExcess Fee AwardStatutory InterpretationContract Law PrinciplesConstitutional ChallengeImpairment ClauseAppellate DivisionInsurance RegulationsLegal Practice
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,591 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