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. 01cv5694
Regular Panel Decision

Mazzei v. Money Store

Plaintiff Joseph Mazzei initiated a class action against The Money Store and related entities, alleging breach of contract for improperly charged mortgage late fees and attorney fee-splitting. The case involved two certified classes: a "Post Acceleration Late Fee Class" and a "Fee Split Class," with a jury finding for Mazzei and the Late Fee Class on late fees but for defendants on the fee-splitting claim. The plaintiff's motion for a new trial regarding the fee-splitting claim was denied, as the court found the jury's verdict was not seriously erroneous. The defendants successfully moved to decertify the Late Fee Class and were granted judgment as a matter of law, because the plaintiff failed to prove class-wide contractual privity with all class members, especially those whose loans were only serviced by the defendants. Consequently, the jury's $54 million damages award for the Late Fee Class could not be upheld, leading to the class's decertification.

Class ActionBreach of ContractMortgage LoanLate FeesLoan AccelerationFee SplittingLoan ServicingPost-Trial MotionsClass DecertificationJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
58
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00118 [190 AD3d 489]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Henry v. Split Rock Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC

Plaintiff Ian Henry, an HVAC technician, was injured on January 24, 2014, at Split Rock Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, when a circuit breaker allegedly exploded. He was inspecting a newly installed rooftop air conditioning unit and was escorted to an electrical room by a Split Rock employee. Split Rock moved for summary judgment, arguing Henry's failure to turn off the power caused the incident, but Henry testified the power was already off. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the motion, finding unresolved factual issues regarding the accident's cause and whether the risks were readily observable. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that material issues of fact remained for trial.

Summary JudgmentHVAC TechnicianWorkplace AccidentCircuit Breaker ExplosionMaterial Issues of FactObservable RisksNegligenceThird-Party DefendantAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1993

Krug v. Offerman, Fallon, Mahoney & Cassano

The plaintiff, an attorney, sued the law firm Offerman, Fallon, Mahoney & Cassano and its partner Leo J. Fallon for breach of contract regarding a fee-splitting agreement. The plaintiff was retained by the firm to represent their client, Charles Hahn, in workers' compensation hearings, specifically to oppose the claim and preserve Hahn's personal injury action. The plaintiff's efforts were successful, leading to a $1.8 million settlement in the personal injury case and a $600,000 contingent fee for the firm. The firm subsequently refused to pay the plaintiff a percentage of the fee. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 and the invalidity of the fee-splitting agreement under the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court denied the motions, finding the action was not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 and the fee agreement was enforceable. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff's claim was for services rendered in the personal injury action and that a fee-splitting agreement does not require a writing unless joint responsibility is assumed, which was not the case here.

breach of contractfee-splitting agreementworkers' compensationpersonal injury litigationattorney compensationjurisdictionprofessional ethicsappellate reviewcontingent feeslegal malpractice
References
3
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. ADJ4347932 (SAC 0166469)
Regular
Sep 13, 2012

KENNETH MCFARLIN (Deceased) vs. STANALAND SHOWER PANS, INC., CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to award applicant's attorney the full $4,500 fee. The Board determined that the attorney's fee was earned for representing the injured worker on accrued benefits, which passed to his heirs. Since the heirs agreed to split the net settlement proceeds equally after fees, the attorney was entitled to the entire fee from the $30,000 Compromise and Release. This decision amends a prior order that split the attorney's fee between the heirs.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDKENNETH MCFARLIN (Deceased)STANALAND SHOWER PANSINC.CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANYGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICESADJ4347932SAC 0166469OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONTHOMAS L. PLUMB
References
0
Case No. 01-08-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2010

Thomas Duran D/B/A Duran Ins. Brokerage and Duran Ins. Brokerage, Inc. v. Entrust, Inc.

Tomas Duran, an insurance broker, appealed a trial court's judgment concerning a fee-splitting dispute with Entrust, Inc., a third-party medical benefit plan administrator. The dispute arose from a letter agreement to share "monthly administrative fees" from a City of Corpus Christi contract. Duran claimed a share of "run-out processing" fees paid to Entrust after the contract's extension, but Entrust contended these were not covered by the original agreement. Duran also challenged the venue of the trial court case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding that Duran waived his venue objection and that the run-out fees were distinct from monthly administrative fees, thus not subject to the fee-splitting arrangement.

Contract LawInsurance BrokerageThird-Party AdministratorFee DisputeBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentVenue WaiverAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1984

In re the Estate of Makudera

This case centers on a dispute over attorney fees following the death of Orlando J. Makudera, Sr., in an automobile accident. Initially, Randall L. Reed, a Chenango County attorney, and an unnamed Rhode Island attorney agreed to an equal split of fees from a workers' compensation claim and a federal civil action. After Peter J. McBride was retained as local trial counsel, all three attorneys signed an agreement stipulating a one-third split of all generated fees, specifically including those from the workers' compensation claim. When the Rhode Island attorney (respondent) objected to his $25,000 compensation fee being included in the gross fees for division, the petitioners (Reed and McBride) sought an order from the Surrogate’s Court. The Surrogate's Court granted summary judgment to the petitioners, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal, citing the respondent's failure to present admissible evidence controverting the signed fee agreement.

Attorney FeesFee AgreementSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LienContract DisputeAncillary ProbateExecutrix DutiesLegal EthicsEvidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. 04-MD-1596
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2006

In Re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation

This order by Senior District Judge Weinstein addresses legal fee allocation in a coordinated multi-district litigation against Eli Lilly & Company concerning the prescription drug Zyprexa. Following a partial settlement covering approximately 8,000 individual plaintiffs, the court adopted a proposal from special settlement masters regarding fee caps. The court modified the proposed cap, reducing it from 37.5% to 35% for most recoveries, while maintaining a 20% cap for "Track A" settlements. The special masters are granted discretionary authority to adjust fees within a range of 30% to 37.5% based on individual case circumstances, with appeal rights to the court. The decision emphasizes the court's inherent authority to supervise attorney fees, particularly in quasi-class actions and mass litigations, to ensure fairness and prevent excessive charges to clients, drawing parallels to class action rules and state laws limiting contingent fees.

Mass TortMulti-District LitigationFee AllocationContingency FeesAttorney FeesEthical SupervisionSettlementZyprexa LitigationQuasi-Class ActionJudicial Discretion
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a prior decision concerning a class action alleging an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy by VISA, MasterCard, and their member banks related to foreign currency conversion fees. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, upholding its earlier finding that network defendants did not waive their right to arbitration because compelling arbitration would have been futile under then-existing law. Additionally, the Court denied reconsideration on several other procedural matters, including the creation of subclasses, membership of specific cardholder subclasses, representation of Diners Club and Providian cardholders, and a request for further discovery, citing the untimeliness of new arguments and the plaintiffs' failure to meet the burden of proof for class certification requirements.

Antitrust LitigationClass Action ProcedureArbitration AgreementsWaiver of ArbitrationEquitable EstoppelForeign Currency Conversion FeesReconsideration MotionSherman ActTruth in Lending ActDeceptive Trade Practices
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2005

In Re Balderas

This decision addresses post-confirmation attorneys' fees in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, using the Balderas case as a factual background. The debtors in the Balderas case sought modification of their plan due to payment defaults and requested $350 in attorney's fees for the motion. The court outlines the history of the Balderas' numerous modifications, moratoriums, and associated attorney fee awards, totaling $3,495, highlighting how these fees were paid out of plan distributions at the expense of creditors. The court analyzes sections 1326(b)(1) and 330(a)(4)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code to determine the reasonableness and payment method of such fees. Ultimately, the court establishes new rules for post-confirmation attorney fee awards in the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, including a $2,500 prima facie base fee, a $100 per month payment rate for additional fees, and specific guidelines for various types of motions. The current $350 fee request for the Balderas case's moratorium is approved but with caution against future similar requests.

BankruptcyChapter 13Attorneys' FeesPost-Confirmation FeesPlan ModificationCreditor DistributionsSecured ClaimsAdministrative ExpensesDebtor RepresentationFeasibility
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 4,329 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