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
Apr 16, 2003

Mickens v. LaSala

Plaintiffs appealed an order granting summary judgment to defendants in a medical malpractice case. They alleged defendants failed to diagnose their son, Noah, with Down's syndrome in utero, seeking extraordinary expenses for his care. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment, finding plaintiffs had not incurred, and would not necessarily incur, such expenses due to government programs like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order but affirmed the judgment, holding that plaintiffs failed to provide proof of extraordinary financial obligations or expert testimony identifying unmet needs not covered by public expense, reinforcing that damages cannot be based on speculation.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful LifeExtraordinary ExpensesDown SyndromeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewParental ClaimGovernment ProgramsIndividuals with Disabilities Education ActCausation
References
6
Case No. 126300 R.D.
Regular Panel Decision

Bazner v. American States Insurance Co.

Walter Bazner, an insulator diagnosed with asbestosis, previously received workers' compensation benefits from L.D. Powell & Company and its insurer, American States Insurance Company, for permanent total disability and medical expenses incurred up to the judgment date. When Bazner incurred additional medical expenses post-judgment, American refused payment, arguing the prior judgment was res judicata and required pre-approval for new expenses. Bazner initiated a new suit, and the trial court sided with him. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Bazner's claim for future medical expenses was not barred, reiterating that such expenses are recoverable under T.C.A. § 50-6-204 and established procedural rules for seeking them via petition in the original action. The court also found Bazner's decision to seek further medical attention from his treating physician reasonable under the circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding future medical payments and related issues.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseFuture Medical ExpensesPost-Judgment CareRes Judicata DefenseEmployer Medical AuthorizationInsurance LiabilityStatutory BenefitsAppellate ReviewRemand Order
References
6
Case No. No. 06-03609, No. 06-03654
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Padilla)

This case addresses how the Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure affect a mortgage lender's right to collect 'Reimbursable Expenses' in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. The Court examined the collection of such expenses both pre- and post-confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. It held that Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) governs the collection of these expenses by mortgage lenders in Chapter 13 cases, both pre and post-confirmation. The Court determined that while Section 506(b) limits pre-confirmation expenses for oversecured creditors, it does not apply post-confirmation. Furthermore, the Court found that failure to comply with Rule 2016(a) or the imposition of unauthorized expenses would entitle a debtor to relief, but that such conduct does not violate the automatic stay. The cross-motions for partial summary judgment were denied due to insufficient evidence regarding actual collection of disputed charges.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Mortgage ServicingReimbursable ExpensesAttorney FeesBankruptcy ProcedureRule 2016(a)Section 506(b)Plan ConfirmationAutomatic Stay
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. United Uniform Co.

The plaintiff appealed the denial of their motion for reimbursement of expenses and attorney's fees under T.R.C.P. 37.03. This motion stemmed from the defendant's objections to requests for admissions concerning medical causation, which necessitated the plaintiff taking depositions of two doctors for trial proof. The trial court initially denied worker's compensation benefits for one alleged accident and awarded medical expenses for another, but denied the motion for expenses and fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for expenses, noting that the plaintiff failed to provide a complete record for review and that expert medical opinion is not discoverable under T.R.C.P. 36. Furthermore, the appellate court granted the defendant's request for damages, deeming the plaintiff's appeal frivolous under T.C.A. § 27-1-122.

Discovery SanctionsRule 37.03Rule 36Appellate ProcedureWorker's Compensation BenefitsMedical Expert TestimonyEvidentiary StandardsAbuse of Discretion StandardFrivolous AppealsCost Reimbursement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Relativity Fashion, LLC

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a motion for attorneys' fees and expenses filed by Relativity Media, LLC (and its affiliates RML Distribution Domestic, LLC, Armored Car Productions, LLC, and DR Productions, LLC, collectively 'Relativity') and Mr. Ryan Kavanaugh against Netflix, Inc. The dispute arose from Netflix's refusal to execute 'Date Extension Amendments' related to a License Agreement, prompting Relativity to seek relief under Section 1142 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court previously ruled that Netflix was barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel from asserting its claimed contractual rights to distribute films before theatrical release. In this opinion, the Court determined that Relativity was the 'prevailing party' under California Civil Code Section 1717 and the License Agreement's fee provision. Consequently, Relativity is entitled to reimbursement for its own reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. However, the Court denied Mr. Kavanaugh's request for reimbursement of his counsel's fees and expenses, concluding that he was not a party to the License Agreement and did not meet the exceptions for non-signatories to recover fees. The Court awarded Relativity $818,547.48, comprising $795,732.50 in attorneys’ fees and $22,814.98 in litigation expenses, against Netflix.

Attorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesContract LawCalifornia Civil Code Section 1717Bankruptcy Code Section 1142Prevailing PartyLodestar MethodHourly RatesJudicial EstoppelRes Judicata
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re American Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc.

Gerald Riggs and Rick Jepson, former senior executives of AMPAM Riggs, an operating subsidiary of American Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. (a Chapter 11 debtor), applied for payment of administrative expenses claims, specifically year-end bonuses based on exceeding EBITDA targets. They argued entitlement under a pre-petition incentive plan and that the payments constituted ordinary course business expenses, which a prior court order allegedly authorized. The Plan Agent and the Official Creditors' Committee objected, contending that Riggs and Jepson were ineligible as they had resigned in April 2004 before bonus payments, and that AMPAM Riggs had not actually met its 2003 EBITDA target once certain late-reported insurance claims were properly factored in. The court found that after adjusting the 2003 EBITDA for these claims, the target was not met, meaning no 15% bonus was owed. Additionally, the court ruled that even if the bonuses were earned, they did not qualify as administrative expenses under Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(1)(A) because they were not attributable to services rendered post-petition and did not confer a discernible benefit to the estate, especially since the applicants had voluntarily resigned. The application for payment of administrative expense claims was therefore denied.

BankruptcyAdministrative ClaimIncentive Bonus PlanEBITDA AdjustmentPost-Petition ServicesChapter 11 ReorganizationFiduciary DutyCreditors' CommitteeVoluntary ResignationBenefit to Estate
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1989

In Re Microwave Products of America, Inc.

Joseph Scallon, former president of Microwave Products of America (MPA), sought payment for post-petition salary and expenses as an administrative claim after MPA filed for bankruptcy. He claimed extensive hours and travel costs for his services as president and CEO, along with two weeks of severance pay. Presiding Judge Bernice Bouie Donald meticulously scrutinized Scallon's application due to his fiduciary role. The court allowed a salary claim of $3,000 for one week of necessary services rendered to preserve the estate. However, Scallon's $6,000 severance pay claim was reclassified as a non-priority general unsecured claim, as it was deemed a gratuitous promise rather than a bargained-for or necessary expense. Additionally, $1,861.71 in post-petition expenses was allowed as a priority claim, contingent upon the submission of proper documentation to the U.S. Trustee and payment upon plan confirmation.

Bankruptcy AdministrationAdministrative ClaimsPriority ClaimsSeverance PayPost-petition ExpensesFiduciary DutyOfficer CompensationDebtor-in-possessionEmployee ClaimsClaim Scrutiny
References
12
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. 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. SA:11-CV-788
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2013

Davis v. Perry

Plaintiffs, including Wendy Davis and LULAC, filed motions for attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs after successfully challenging Texas's Senate redistricting plan (Plan S148). They argued the plan diluted minority voting strength and lacked preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. The Court initially enjoined Plan S148 and implemented an interim plan (S172), which was later adopted by the Texas Legislature. Despite the Supreme Court's *Shelby County* decision invalidating a key VRA section, the Court found plaintiffs to be 'prevailing parties' due to the significant judicially sanctioned interim relief. The Court granted the fee motions in part, adjusting the requested amounts based on the reasonableness of hours, hourly rates, and allowable expenses, while disallowing fees for unverified support staff and clerical tasks.

Attorneys' FeesRedistrictingVoting Rights ActSection 5 VRASection 2 VRAFourteenth AmendmentFifteenth AmendmentInterim ReliefPrevailing PartyLodestar Method
References
84
Showing 1-10 of 2,267 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