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
Aug 10, 2004

Claim of Mickens v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1993 and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A stipulation agreement between the claimant and employer, which adjusted weekly awards and set future payments, was approved by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The claimant appealed this decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board, asserting the stipulation's invalidity, inadequate legal representation, and excessive counsel fees. The Board upheld the WCLJ's decision and denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the stipulation binding and the counsel fee award within the Board's discretion, and no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Stipulation AgreementCounsel FeesBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewPsychological ImpairmentsWork-related InjuryDecision AffirmedDiscretionary PowersLegal RepresentationBenefit Adjustment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Marin v. Constitution Realty, LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the division of attorneys' fees among Sheryl Menkes (appellant), David B. Golomb, and Jeffrey A. Manheimer (respondents). Menkes, attorney of record for plaintiffs in a personal injury action, had agreements with both Golomb and Manheimer for fee sharing. The primary dispute concerned Golomb's share, contingent on whether the case settled at a specific mediation session (12% fee) or later (40% fee). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the contract unambiguous that the mediation session concluded on a specific date, entitling Golomb to the higher fee, and that Manheimer was entitled to 20% as per his agreement. The court rejected Menkes's arguments based on contract interpretation and professional conduct rules.

Attorney's FeesContract InterpretationMediation AgreementFee DisputePersonal Injury ActionQuantum MeruitProfessional ConductNew York LawSettlement NegotiationsStructured Settlement
References
13
Case No. ADJ8374764
Regular
Oct 29, 2018

RODY CONTRERAS vs. CITY OF REDONDO BEACH

This case concerns an award of additional attorney's fees to applicant's counsel. The Second District Court of Appeal remanded the matter for such fees after denying the defendant's petition for writ of review. The parties subsequently stipulated to reasonable appellate attorney's fees of $1,600.00. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an award for these stipulated fees, payable in addition to any compensation to the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 5801additional attorney's feesPetition for Writ of Reviewremandstipulationappellate attorney's feesCity of Redondo BeachPermissibly Self-InsuredAdminSure
References
1
Case No. ADJ3584368 (AHM 0049668)
Regular
May 15, 2013

STEVE GIANNINI vs. CITY OF IRVINE

This case involves a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision concerning attorney's fees. Following a Court of Appeal order to award fees for responding to the defendant's writ of review, the parties stipulated to $3,547.12. The Board has accepted this stipulation. An award is therefore made in favor of applicant's counsel, Leonard Stern, against the City of Irvine for this appellate attorney's fee. This fee is in addition to any compensation otherwise payable to the applicant.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTEVE GIANNINICITY OF IRVINECORVEL INSURANCE COMPANYADJ3584368ADJ2266028ADJ4420242ADJ4296333ADJ1443533ADJ814285
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ronkese v. Tilcon New York, Inc.

Plaintiff, injured while working for Tilcon New York, Inc., sought to enforce a settlement stipulation that included the satisfaction of a workers' compensation lien. Defendant Tilcon argued that no such lien applied as the recovery was against an employer, not a third-party tortfeasor, and that federal maritime law precluded state workers' compensation benefits. The Supreme Court partially sided with defendant, denying the lien enforcement but awarding counsel fees. The appellate court reversed, holding that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 does apply to claims against employers and that federal law did not bar the plaintiff's claim for apportionment of litigation costs. The case was remitted to determine the equitable share of litigation expenses, while the counsel fee award was reversed.

Workers' Compensation LawLien EnforcementStipulation of SettlementEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsEmployer LiabilityFederal Maritime LawJones ActJudicial EstoppelAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. ADJ11299000
Regular
Oct 09, 2019

ORLANDO WATKINS vs. SME STEEL CONTRACTORS INC., THE HARTFORD

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an award of additional attorney's fees and costs. Following a denial of a Petition for Writ of Review by the Second District Court of Appeal, the matter was remanded for an award of fees. The applicant's counsel and defendant's counsel stipulated to a reasonable fee amount of $4,120.88. The Board found this stipulated amount to be reasonable and issued an award accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardattorney's feescostsPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811stipulated agreementremandappellate attorney's feesHartford Casualty Insurance Company
References
1
Case No. ADJ3310545
Regular
Dec 07, 2017

LANCE GOODWIN vs. EDW APFFELS COMPANY, INC., PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an award of additional attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801. The Second District Court of Appeal previously remanded the matter for such an award after denying the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. Applicant's counsel and the defendant stipulated to reasonable attorney's fees of $8,000.00 for services rendered in responding to the petition. The Board found the stipulated amount reasonable and issued the award to the applicant's law firm.

Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801RemandStipulationAppellate Attorney's FeesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Compensation Insurance CompanyEDW APFFELS COMPANYINC.
References
1
Case No. ADJ1982202
Regular
Mar 09, 2009

NOEL RIVERA vs. SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, INC., CHUBB FEDERAL INSURANCE, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a claim by Noel Rivera against Sensient Technologies Corporation. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review and found no reasonable basis for it, remanding the case for supplemental attorney fees. A stipulation between the parties was reached whereby the defendant agreed to pay $3,500.00 for these supplemental attorney fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board approved this stipulation as reasonable.

Labor Code § 5801Supplemental Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewDenial of PetitionRemittiturStipulationLump SumT. Mae YoshidaMullen & FilippiWCAB
References
1
Case No. ADJ3380228 (SRO 0133900)
Regular
Mar 09, 2009

LISSA PORTER (PAIZ) vs. COUNTY OF SONOMA

The Court of Appeal denied the defendant County of Sonoma's petition for writ of review, finding no reasonable basis for it. Consequently, the Court granted the applicant's request for attorney fees and remanded the case for an additional award. The parties subsequently stipulated to $3,250.00 for the applicant's attorney's fees and costs. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board approved this stipulation and ordered the defendant to pay the specified amount.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's FeesWrit of ReviewRemittiturSupplemental AwardBragg and AssociatesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of SonomaHanna BrophyMark Weinberger
References
1
Case No. ADJ1895769 (OAK 0305869)
Regular
Aug 24, 2016

CATHERINE BURNHAM vs. MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal, finding jurisdiction over a dispute regarding the cost of specialized prosthetic braces (IDEOs), which a prior judge erroneously sent for Independent Bill Review. The WCAB determined that Labor Code section 4603.6 did not apply as there was no billable service in the conventional sense. Following a Commissioners' Conference, the parties entered stipulations for the provision of the braces, payment of fees according to the CA fee schedule, and resolution of associated penalties. The WCAB approved these stipulations, resolving the parties' dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarJurisdictionLabor Code 4603.6Independent Bill ReviewIntrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal OrthosisIDEO bracesMedical Fee ScheduleLabor Code 4603.2
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 3,918 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