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

Claim of Marshall v. Savannah Sausage Corp.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board disallowing a claimant's application for death benefits as untimely and denying counsel fees. James Marshall, a marketing consultant, sustained serious injuries in a 1977 motor vehicle accident and later died in 1981. His widow, the claimant, filed a death claim in 1984, which was deemed untimely by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently affirmed by the Board, as it was not filed within two years of Marshall's death. Additionally, the Board denied counsel fees, ruling that compensation benefits would not exceed the third-party settlement Marshall received, thus rendering further legal efforts futile. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the untimely filing of the death claim and concurring that no counsel fees lien was applicable.

Death BenefitsTimeliness of ClaimCounsel FeesThird-Party SettlementWorkers' Compensation LawInsurance CarrierDisability ClaimAppealLienWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Zizolfo v. Western Electric Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on November 29, 1978, concerning an attorney's fee. The claimant's attorney, designated as the appellant, sought an additional $1,500 fee, contending that the initial $500 awarded by a referee was inadequate. The Board, however, determined that the appellant had been sufficiently compensated for services rendered. The appellate court, referencing section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that its determination on attorney's fees would only be disturbed if the fee was arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably low. Finding no such grounds, the court upheld the Board's original ruling.

Attorney's FeesAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFee DisputeJudicial DiscretionCompensation AwardsLegal ServicesAffirmationAdministrative Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Relativity Fashion, LLC

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a motion for attorneys' fees and expenses filed by Relativity Media, LLC (and its affiliates RML Distribution Domestic, LLC, Armored Car Productions, LLC, and DR Productions, LLC, collectively 'Relativity') and Mr. Ryan Kavanaugh against Netflix, Inc. The dispute arose from Netflix's refusal to execute 'Date Extension Amendments' related to a License Agreement, prompting Relativity to seek relief under Section 1142 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court previously ruled that Netflix was barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel from asserting its claimed contractual rights to distribute films before theatrical release. In this opinion, the Court determined that Relativity was the 'prevailing party' under California Civil Code Section 1717 and the License Agreement's fee provision. Consequently, Relativity is entitled to reimbursement for its own reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. However, the Court denied Mr. Kavanaugh's request for reimbursement of his counsel's fees and expenses, concluding that he was not a party to the License Agreement and did not meet the exceptions for non-signatories to recover fees. The Court awarded Relativity $818,547.48, comprising $795,732.50 in attorneys’ fees and $22,814.98 in litigation expenses, against Netflix.

Attorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesContract LawCalifornia Civil Code Section 1717Bankruptcy Code Section 1142Prevailing PartyLodestar MethodHourly RatesJudicial EstoppelRes Judicata
References
85
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
Case No. ADJ3935687 (SDO 0341896) ADJ3919136 (SDO 0359646)
Regular
Feb 13, 2009

HEATHER CLEMMONS vs. MAY DEPARTMENT STORES, FEDERATED CLAIMS SERVICES, NORDSTROM, NORDSTROM RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns the defendant's liability for applicant's attorney's fees under Labor Code section 4064(c). The applicant seeks reconsideration of an order mandating the defendant pay these fees. The defendant argues they should not be liable as they did not file the application that generated the fees, nor did the applicant's attorney provide services related to the application they filed. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the defendant is liable for fees incurred by the unrepresented applicant in relation to the application *they* filed, but not for fees related to an application filed by another party. The applicant's attorney is entitled to fees for issues arising from the defendant's application, including potential apportionment of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4064(c)attorney's feesapplication for adjudicationunrepresented employeecumulative trauma injuryNordstromapportionmentpermanent disability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2015

Matter of Curcio v. Sherwood 370 Management LLC

The claimant, a building engineer, sustained a work-related back and neck injury, initially classified as a permanent total disability by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) with awarded counsel fees. The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) modified this, finding a permanent partial disability with a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity and reduced counsel fees due to an improperly completed application. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial medical evidence supporting a partial disability and a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity based on the claimant's age, education, work history, and functional abilities. The court also upheld the reduction of counsel fees due to the attorney's failure to accurately complete the required fee application form.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning Capacity LossWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCounsel FeesMedical EvidenceVocational FactorsOC-400.1 ApplicationAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionMedical Impairment Guidelines
References
12
Case No. ADJ7476466
Regular
Jul 17, 2013

JESUS AGUILAR vs. ROSABLA A. SAWERS, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORP., AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Greenway Clinic's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the dismissal of its lien. Greenway argued that electronic system malfunctions prevented timely payment of a lien activation fee required under Labor Code section 4903.06. However, the Board found this section inapplicable to liens filed after January 1, 2013, which are subject to a filing fee under section 4903.05. Because Greenway's lien was filed in 2013 without the required filing fee, it was deemed invalid and dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for reconsiderationLien activation feeElectronic Adjudication Management SystemLabor Code section 4903.06Declaration of Readiness to ProceedCompromise and ReleaseLien filing feeInvalid lien
References
0
Case No. ADJ590476 (MON 0347305) ADJ1613386 (MON 0347306)
Regular
Mar 24, 2014

JOSE MANUEL MIJES vs. TARO'S TAPAS, LLC, GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by former attorney Dean Donin. Donin sought reconsideration of a compromise and release order that held attorney's fees in trust pending a fee-split agreement, arguing he wasn't served and no fees were awarded to him. The Board found Donin was not aggrieved by the order as it preserved his potential interest in the fees. Furthermore, the Board strongly admonished Donin for filing the petition without verifying the order's content or attempting informal resolution, noting this practice and potential lack of lien filing wastes resources and may lead to sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and Releaseattorney's feesfee-split agreementadministrative law judgeaggrievedlien claimantEAMS
References
1
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

Spence v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.

The plaintiff's racial discrimination lawsuit against the defendant, alleging denial of a transfer from a flight attendant to a ground position, was dismissed. The defendant, as the prevailing party, sought attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 2000e-5(k). The Court found the plaintiff's claims frivolous, groundless, and sustained without factual basis, noting a lack of EEOC filing and a previous Workers' Compensation Law discrimination disallowance. Considering the plaintiff's financial capacity against the defendant's legal costs, the Court awarded the defendant $1,500 in attorneys' fees, aiming to deter meritless suits while avoiding financial ruin for the plaintiff. The decision was made in the Southern District of New York.

Attorneys' FeesRacial DiscriminationEmployment LawCivil Rights ActTitle VIIPrevailing PartyFrivolous LitigationGroundless ClaimsMotion PracticeJudicial Discretion
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 10,705 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