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

Tokyo Electron Arizona, Inc. v. Discreet Industries Corp.

This order addresses the plaintiff Tokyo Electron Arizona's (TAZ) application for reasonable attorney's fees and costs against defendants Discreet Industries and Ovadia Meron (Discreet), pursuant to Federal Rule 37. The court determines the appropriate award by assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended, applying the lodestar method. While acknowledging the high caliber of work, the court reduced Mr. Haug's hourly rate and applied a 10% overall reduction to the billed hours to account for potential overlap. Additionally, the court found TAZ's copying and transcript costs reasonable and partially awarded costs for a computer-generated Power Point presentation. Ultimately, TAZ was awarded $55,751.79 in fees and $5386.19 in costs, totaling $61,137.98.

Attorney's FeesCostsDiscovery SanctionsFederal Rule 37Lodestar MethodHourly RatesReasonable HoursEastern District of New YorkSouthern District of New YorkWork Product Doctrine
References
26
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. 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
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. 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. ADJ4387448 (SJO 0267422)
Regular
Mar 11, 2014

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

The Court of Appeal ordered a supplemental attorney's fee award for applicant's counsel for successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Board reviewed the attorney's claimed hours and rate, deeming some time entries excessive and clerical tasks non-compensable. Ultimately, the Board awarded $5,480.00 in attorney's fees plus $47.74 in costs, totaling $5,527.74, and clarified this award is in addition to any compensation owed. The Board also rejected the defendant's argument that the third-party credit applied to this supplemental fee award.

Labor Code § 5801Supplemental Attorney's FeePetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of Appeal RemandApplicant's AttorneyReasonable Attorney FeesHourly RateTime and EffortCase ComplexityClerical Tasks
References
2
Case No. ADJ7148169
Regular
Nov 05, 2019

MARIA GARCIA vs. ST. JOHN KNITS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Appeals Board awarded applicant's attorney $6,700.00 in additional attorney fees for services rendered in responding to the defendant's unsuccessful Petition for Writ of Review. The Court of Appeal had remanded the case specifically for this supplemental fee award. While the hourly rate was deemed reasonable, the Board determined the total fee based on the attorney's time, effort, and the merits of opposing the writ. Despite the case being of average complexity, the attorney's thorough response to the defendant's factually based petition justified the full requested amount.

Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801Supplemental AwardAttorney's FeesAppellate ServicesPetition for Writ of ReviewWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly RateTime and Effort
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Cassellas

In a sex discrimination case that resulted in a successful settlement for the plaintiff, Ms. Jackson, her attorney, William A. Price, Esq., sought an award for attorney fees and expenses. The defendant, EEOC, objected to the fee application due to concerns about the hourly rate, lack of contemporaneous records, and vague work descriptions. Presiding Judge Curtin, after considering the complexities of the case, Mr. Price's integrity, and the issues with document production, determined that a 15% reduction for vagueness and record-keeping deficiencies was warranted. However, the court also awarded a 10% bonus for the excellent results achieved and the difficulties encountered, resulting in a net 5% reduction. The final award for attorney fees was $291,405.85, with an additional $14,785.77 reimbursed for costs.

Attorney FeesSex DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1991Lodestar MethodHourly Rate CalculationContemporaneous RecordsVagueness of RecordsFee ReductionFee EnhancementSettlement Agreement
References
21
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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 4,041 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