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

Desalvatore v. Washburn

This case concerns a plaintiff attorney's defamation lawsuit against Frederick C. and Joanna L. Washburn, stemming from a letter they sent to the Social Security Administration (SSA) disputing the attorney's fee. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction due to improper service and absolute privilege for the allegedly defamatory statements made during an administrative fee review. The plaintiff cross-moved to disqualify the defendants' counsel. The court, presided over by Justice Robert F. Julian, determined that the statements made to the SSA were part of a quasi-judicial proceeding and thus absolutely privileged, leading to the dismissal of the defamation complaint. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for counsel disqualification and the defendants' request for sanctions, noting the novelty of the privilege issue concerning SSA complaints.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsQuasi-Judicial BodySocial Security AdministrationFee DisputeService of ProcessAttorney FeesFrivolous LitigationDisqualification of Counsel
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Connell v. Mann (In Re Davila)

Daniel E. O’Connell, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee, filed a complaint against attorney Frank E. Mann, III, seeking fee reduction, disallowance, and disgorgement in 155 Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. The Court found Mann engaged in a pattern of misconduct, including accepting unapproved fees, falsifying client schedules, and suborning perjury, in violation of bankruptcy laws and professional conduct rules. Mann's practice relied heavily on untrained legal assistants, resulting in inaccurate client disclosures and inadequate legal advice. The Court concluded that Mann's services were akin to a petition preparer and he was incompetent in bankruptcy matters. Consequently, the Court denied all claimed fees, ordered Mann to disgorge previously received fees, and suspended him from practicing before the presiding judge.

Bankruptcy Attorney MisconductFee DisgorgementAttorney SuspensionProfessional Ethics ViolationsFalsified Client SchedulesSubornation of PerjuryUnapproved Attorney FeesChapter 13 BankruptcySouthern District of TexasTrustee Complaint
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Van Sickle

Baltasar D. Cruz sued James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report, and Katherine Haenschen for libel regarding a statement posted on the Burnt Orange Report website. The trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (anti-SLAPP statute) and awarded attorney's fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the libel claim, concluding that Cruz, as a public official candidate, failed to provide clear and specific evidence of actual malice. However, the appellate court reversed the award of attorney's fees to the Burnt Orange Report defendants because their attorneys provided pro bono services, meaning the fees were not 'incurred' as required by the Act. The attorney's fees awarded to James Van Sickle were affirmed.

Anti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Citizens Participation ActLibel Per SeDefamationActual MalicePublic OfficialCandidate for OfficeAttorney's FeesPro Bono RepresentationAppellate Review
References
42
Case No. ADJ3547384; ADJ1113447
Regular
Jul 07, 2025

JOSE BERRIOS vs. JERRYS FAMOUS DELI, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, CENTRE INSURANCE

The applicant's current attorney petitioned for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order that awarded the entire $90,000 attorney's fee to the applicant's prior counsel due to the current attorney's failure to file a timely disclosure statement. The Appeals Board found that the current attorney's initial disclosure statement did not comply with Labor Code § 4906(e) and that payment is precluded for services rendered before a compliant form is filed. However, the Board granted the petition for reconsideration to allow further review of the factual and legal issues, noting that the order is not a final decision on the merits and encourages mediation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 4906Disclosure StatementCompromise and ReleaseCIGACentre InsuranceWCJReconsideration Granted
References
24
Case No. ADJ10825156
Regular
Jul 28, 2025

RAMON MUNOZ vs. THE EDWARD THOMAS COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration to address a clarification regarding attorney's fees. The Board affirmed the WCJ's Findings and Award, which found applicant sustained injury to the right knee and hypertension, denied apportionment for hypertension, and disallowed credit for temporary disability overpayment. The Board specifically found that the defendant failed to meet its burden for hypertension apportionment. The only amendment made was to explicitly state that attorney's fees should be held in trust pending the filing of a fee disclosure statement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardRight Knee InjuryHypertensionApportionmentTemporary Disability OverpaymentAttorney FeesFee Disclosure StatementPanel Qualified Medical Examiner
References
7
Case No. ADJ11757061
Regular
Jun 23, 2025

NATASHA LOEFFLER vs. UCSD MEDICAL CENTER, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Natasha Loeffler's petition for reconsideration of a prior Findings and Award. The Board found the workers' compensation administrative law judge erred by not assessing attorney's fees on temporary disability indemnity and noted issues with the applicant's attorney's fee disclosure statement. Additionally, a clerical error in the applicant's earnings was identified. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original Findings and Award, substituted new findings deferring the attorney's fees issue and correcting the earnings, and returned the case for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAttorney's FeesTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent DisabilityEarnings CalculationFee Disclosure StatementLabor Code Section 4906(e)WCAB Rule 10842Clerical Error
References
8
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2015

Tom J. Jones, and All Occupants v. Dinh Tran & Sonny & Anna, LLC

This document is an Affidavit of Indigency, also known as a Pauper's Oath or Affidavit of Inability to Pay Court Costs. It is used by a petitioner to request the court to waive court fees, asserting an inability to pay due to indigency or receipt of public benefits. The affidavit requires the petitioner to provide current, complete, and true financial information, including income sources and amounts, public benefits received, dependents, property, debts, and monthly expenses. The document warns that false statements can lead to prosecution and states that the court may conduct a hearing to verify the financial information before approving or denying the request for fee waiver. The case involves I. J. Doubs as the petitioner and Jerry D. Crawford as the respondent, filed in the 14th Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas, on January 28, 2015.

Affidavit of IndigencyCourt Costs WaiverPauper's OathFinancial DisclosurePublic BenefitsFee ExemptionTexas Civil ProcedureIndigent LitigantJudicial AdministrationCivil Litigation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Interest of L. Z., M. H. and N. U., Children v. Department of Family and Protective Services

This document is a "Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond" designed for use in Texas courts. It requires the individual filing the lawsuit (plaintiff) to provide their full legal name, date of birth, home and mailing addresses, phone number, and email. The form also asks for information about financial dependents. The applicant must indicate their legal representation status, specifically if they are represented by legal aid or were deemed financially eligible but could not be taken on as a client. Additionally, the statement requires disclosure of any needs-based public benefits received. A significant portion of the form focuses on the applicant's financial situation, including monthly income sources and amounts, the total value of their property (cash, bank accounts, vehicles, other assets), and a detailed breakdown of monthly expenses such as rent, food, utilities, medical costs, and transportation. Finally, the applicant must list any outstanding debts and can attach additional supporting facts. The document concludes with a declaration under penalty of perjury, affirming the truthfulness of the information provided and stating the inability to afford court costs or an appeal bond.

Court CostsAppeal BondIndigencyFinancial DisclosureLegal AidPublic BenefitsIncome StatementExpense ReportAsset DeclarationDebt Listing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Kover

Attorneys Burton Citak and Donald L. Citak appealed orders that imposed sanctions and denied legal fees related to an article 81 guardianship proceeding for Eva Dworecki, an alleged incapacitated person. The attorneys were sanctioned for frivolous conduct, including making misrepresentations and false statements in court filings and arguments, and accusing the court of misconduct, despite previously consenting to the guardianship. The appellate decision, in this concurring opinion by Tom, J.P., found ample support for the Supreme Court's finding that the attorneys' conduct warranted sanctions. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to determine the appropriate costs, reduce the award to judgment, and set reasonable legal fees for the Citak firm's representation of Dr. Dworecki prior to the frivolous filings.

SanctionsAttorneysGuardianshipArticle 81Frivolous ConductAppellate ReviewProfessional MisconductLegal FeesCostsCourt Orders
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,941 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