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
Sep 09, 1991

Cleary v. Perales

This case concerns an appeal regarding the entitlement to attorney's fees for a mentally retarded man (petitioner) who successfully challenged the denial of Medicaid reimbursement for his transportation to a Federal sheltered workshop via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The initial IAS Court found the denial of Medicaid coverage irrational and not in accordance with social services law. On appeal, the court unanimously reversed the lower court's denial of attorney's fees, concluding that the petitioner, as a prevailing party, was entitled to such fees under 42 USC § 1988. The court determined that the federal claim had sufficient substance and derived from a common nucleus of operative fact with the state claim. The matter was remanded for the calculation of attorney's fees, with the State respondent bearing the final responsibility.

Attorney's FeesMedicaid ReimbursementSocial Security DisabilityCPLR Article 78Federal Statutory RightsPrevailing PartyCommon Nucleus of Operative FactMental RetardationTransportation CostsSocial Services Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 1990

Continental Building Co. v. Town of North Salem

This case concerns an amended order regarding the award of attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988. The court re-affirmed its previous finding that the plaintiff was a 'prevailing party' and that no 'special circumstances' existed to deny the award, rejecting arguments regarding defendants' good faith, plaintiff's financial ability, or third-party contributions. The court then determined the reasonableness of the fees, finding the hours expended and the hourly rate to be appropriate. Despite the 'lodestar fee' calculation, the court, exercising its discretion, reduced the final award to prevent overpricing litigation, ultimately granting $318,977.78 in attorney's fees and $73,022.22 in disbursements and expenses.

Civil RightsAttorney's FeesPrevailing PartySpecial CircumstancesLodestar MethodDisbursementsExpert Witness FeesSection 1983Section 1988Exclusionary Zoning
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 1999

Town of Hempstead v. Inc. Village of Atlantic Beach

This case involves two related actions arising from inter-municipal agreements for waste disposal services. The defendants appealed from initial court orders concerning their obligations to pay minimum waste commitment tonnage fees and their entitlement to various credits, including those for private carters, recyclable materials, and yard waste. The plaintiffs cross-appealed regarding the methodology for calculating yard waste credits and the fees for using the Town's transfer facility. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, issued an initial order and a subsequent amended order upon reargument, clarifying several points. The Appellate Division affirmed the amended order, holding that the agreements unambiguously required villages to pay minimum tonnage fees regardless of actual waste delivered. The court also determined that the villages were only obligated to pay transfer facility fees based on actual waste delivered and that any ambiguities regarding yard waste credits should be interpreted against the Town as the drafter of the agreements.

Inter-municipal agreementsWaste disposalSummary judgmentContract interpretationMinimum commitment feesYard waste creditTransfer facility feesUnambiguous agreementsExtrinsic evidenceAmbiguity construction
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05964 [209 AD3d 596]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2022

Pirozzo v. Laight St. Fee Owner LLC

Plaintiff Paul Pirozzo sought summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Laight Street Fee Owner LLC, Laight Street Fee Owner II LLC, and Sciame Construction, LLC, which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. The plaintiff established a prima facie case by demonstrating that the scaffold he was working on collapsed without an apparent reason. The defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, either by failing to lock scaffold pins or remaining on the scaffold while it was moved, were deemed unavailing. The court noted that these actions, even if proven, would amount to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and there was no evidence of specific instructions to the plaintiff that were disobeyed.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold collapseSole proximate causeComparative negligenceWorkers' compensation Form C-2Hearsay objectionPersonal knowledgeRecalcitranceAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. SAC 355328
Regular
Jul 12, 2007

COLLEEN JORDAN vs. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE

The Court of Appeal remanded this case for the Appeals Board to award attorney's fees to the applicant for responding to the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Appeals Board awarded $4,470.00 in attorney's fees, calculated at $300 per hour for 14.9 hours of work. This award reflects the attorney's experience, the complexity of the case, and the successful opposition to the writ.

Labor Code § 5801attorney's feesWrit of ReviewCourt of Appealsupplemental awardhourly rateworkers' compensation specialistappellate complexityreasonable attorney's feesWCAB
References
2
Case No. ADJ2977853
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

JORGE ALVAREZ vs. PEREZ FARMS & ASSOCIATES, STATE COMFENEATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a defendant's reconsideration of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding attorney's fees and a life pension calculation. The defendant argued that the calculated life pension rate and associated attorney's fees lacked justification and proper explanation, particularly concerning annual cost of living adjustments. The WCAB granted reconsideration, noting issues with the provided commutation worksheets, including a different employee's name. Consequently, the Board amended its decision to defer the calculation of the life pension and its related attorney's fees, remanding the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and opportunity for parties to present rebuttal evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLife PensionAttorney FeeCommutationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentIndustrial InjuryMedical TreatmentWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ6820900
Regular
Mar 02, 2011

YVES GOLDSTICKER vs. PACIFIC COVE DEVELOPMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision, affirming penalties against the defendant for unpaid interest but amending the order regarding attorney's fees. The original order awarded penalties on unpaid interest and an attorney fee deducted from the applicant's award, which the applicant sought to increase. The Board found the WCJ's calculation of attorney's fees was unclear and deferred the issue of the fee amount for further proceedings. This return to the trial level is to allow for a proper calculation of the attorney's fee under Labor Code section 5814.5, based on time and effort expended.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Cove DevelopmentState Compensation Insurance FundADJ6820900Findings Award and OrderWCJPenaltiesUnpaid InterestLabor Code Section 5814.5Attorney's Fee
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Office of Risk Management v. Maria E. Olivas

Maria Olivas prevailed at the DWC in a work injury claim against SORM for the loss of both hands, entitling her to lifetime income benefits. SORM appealed the DWC's determination to a trial court, which ruled against SORM and awarded Olivas lifetime income benefits. The trial court also approved an attorney's fee of $139,338, to be paid out of Olivas's benefits, which SORM challenged on appeal. SORM argued that sovereign immunity barred attorney's fees under Tex.Lab.Code Ann. § 408.221(c) and that the fee calculation and commutation were improper. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that fees could be paid from the worker's recovery under § 408.221(b) despite SORM's sovereign immunity, that the trial court properly calculated the fee, and that commuting the fee was permissible under the Act.

Worker's Compensation LawAttorney's Fees DisputeSovereign Immunity DefenseTexas Labor Code InterpretationContingency Fee AgreementsLifetime Income BenefitsFee CommutationJudicial Review of Administrative DecisionsState Employee ClaimsStatutory Construction Principles
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Sixty-One Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars & No Cents ($61,900.00)

This memorandum decision and order addresses a motion for attorneys' fees and expenses in a civil forfeiture case where claimant Robert Potenza substantially prevailed against the Government's allegation of structuring cash deposits to avoid reporting. District Judge Cogan granted the motion in part and denied in part, after finding several objections to the fee calculation meritorious. The court reduced fees for a co-counsel/expert and specific instances of excessive billing for trial preparation and subpoena drafting, while disallowing reimbursement for accountants' legal fees and interest on fees. The decision also established reasonable hourly rates for legal services in the Eastern District of New York, considering the complexity and nature of the litigation. The parties were directed to submit a revised calculation based on these rulings.

Civil ForfeitureAttorneys' FeesCAFRAFee-shiftingReasonable FeesBilling PracticesEastern District of New YorkHourly RatesExpert Witness FeesMotion In Limine
References
16
Case No. ADJ1173127 (MON 0325384) ADJ3837547 (MON 0325381) ADJ4434066 (MON 0325383) ADJ782804 (MON 0325386)
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

Lech Antonowicz vs. SOUTH PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an administrative law judge's award, specifically concerning the applicant's attorney's fees. The defendant argued the attorney's fees were improperly calculated. The Board affirmed the findings and award of temporary and permanent disability indemnity, but deferred the issue of attorney's fees. This deferral is to allow the trial level to clarify the calculation basis, payment, and justification for the attorney's fees in accordance with legal requirements.

WCABreconsiderationindustrial cumulative traumatemporary disability indemnitypermanent disabilityattorney's feesLabor CodeAppeals Board RuleWCJspecific injury
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,216 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