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

In Re Beecham

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses the application of Donna R. Beeeham for a waiver of the Chapter 7 filing fee. Ms. Beeeham, a debtor with a reported monthly income of $804 and expenses of $1075, had filed her petition along with the fee waiver application. A hearing was held on November 16, 1994, to assess her entitlement to an In Forma Pauperis waiver, during which she disclosed a pending Workers' Compensation claim and substantial medical debts. The court, presided over by Judge G. Harvey Boswell, ultimately denied the application, citing Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1006(b)(3). This rule mandates that the filing fee must be fully paid before an attorney receives payment for bankruptcy-related services, and Ms. Beeeham had paid her attorney a $500 fee, thus indicating an ability to pay the filing fee, even if borrowed. Consequently, she was ordered to pay the $160 filing fee within thirty days or file an installment payment application to prevent case dismissal.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyFiling Fee WaiverIn Forma PauperisBankruptcy ProcedureDebtor's Attorney FeesAbility to PayInstallment PaymentsCase Dismissal AvoidanceWestern District of TennesseeJudicial Conference Pilot Program
References
9
Case No. ADJ3687516
Regular
Jan 26, 2012

RAMONA ANAYA, JUAN JOSE GONZALEZ, JESUS CERVANTES, JULIE ANN CABEZA, WALTER CRABTREE vs. PORT HUENEME UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, J. M. SMUCKERS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC., GHL ENTERPRISES, CIGA, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., PAULA INSURANCE COMPANY, MARY HEALTH OF THE SICK, REDISED INSURANCE, CRAWFY AND COMPANY, M.R. AUTOMOTIVE, CIGA, Administrative inTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, HIH AMERICA COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Attorney M. Francesca Hannan's request for a waiver of fees or a payment plan for reporter's transcripts. Hannan sought the transcripts to support allegations of bias by a Workers' Compensation Judge and claimed financial hardship and limited time for preparation. The Board found no legal basis for the fee waiver or payment plan under applicable rules and statutes, though it affirmed Hannan's right to obtain the transcripts upon payment.

WCABPetitionReporter's TranscriptFee WaiverPayment PlanGovernment Code 68632Administrative Director Rule 9990Appeals Board Rule 10740AnayaLien Trial
References
0
Case No. Consolidated Chapter 13 Cases (e.g., 91-20422 to 97-36152)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Phillips

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses objections by chapter 13 trustees to the postpetition claims for attorney's fees and expenses filed by William A. Cohn, an attorney representing numerous chapter 13 debtors. Mr. Cohn had routinely filed these claims under 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(2), arguing it served as an alternative to the § 330 procedures for professional compensation. The Court found that § 1305(a)(2) is intended for exigent circumstances where prior trustee approval is impracticable, not for routine legal work, and that Mr. Cohn failed to meet its conditions. It emphasized that § 330, which requires notice, a hearing, and detailed documentation, is the appropriate procedural vehicle for approving attorney's fees to ensure reasonableness and benefit to the debtor. Consequently, the Court disallowed all of Mr. Cohn's postpetition claims filed under § 1305(a)(2), vacated prior administrative orders that had mistakenly allowed these claims, and ordered Mr. Cohn to either file proper § 330(a)(4)(B) applications with full time and expense documentation by July 31, 1998, or disgorge all received postconfirmation fees and expenses by August 14, 1998.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13 ProceedingsAttorney CompensationPostpetition ClaimsFee ApplicationsDisgorgement of FeesProcedural ComplianceProfessional EthicsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Errors
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workforce Commission v. Olivas

Ms. Maria Elena Olivas, a former employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, filed a workers' compensation claim after developing injuries in March 2008. She was subsequently dismissed from employment in May 2009, leading her to file a suit against the Commission for retaliatory discharge. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing that Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code mandated an unequivocal waiver of immunity, which it claimed was absent in the anti-retaliation provisions of Chapter 451. The trial court denied the Commission's plea. On appeal, the Commission contended that Section 311.034 abrogated existing Texas Supreme Court precedent (*Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez*) that recognized a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against state agencies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the State Applications Act (SAA) still provides a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies, and that neither Section 311.034 nor the *Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman* decision altered this established legal analysis.

Sovereign ImmunityRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernment CodeLabor CodeLegislative WaiverState AgenciesStatutory Construction
References
4
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 Re Willis

The debtor, Trennis Earl Willis, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. An asset in his estate is a personal injury claim, for which he had a contingency fee contract with attorney Frank L. Supercinski. Supercinski sought approval for his fees ($20,000 plus expenses) from a $50,000 settlement of the personal injury claim and approval of a disbursement scheme. Both the Debtor and the Chapter 7 Trustee objected, arguing the contingency fee contract was executory and rejected by the estate. The Court, presided over by Judge Donald R. Sharp, found the contingency fee agreement to be executory and deemed rejected as not assumed by the Trustee. However, applying the common fund doctrine, the Court acknowledged Supercinski's entitlement to fees from the settlement proceeds with priority. Despite this, all of Supercinski's motions (for fees, settlement approval, and relief from stay) were denied due to procedural flaws, such as the settlement not being finalized or approved, and the lack of a settlement agreement copy. The Court clarified that the settlement check is property of the Debtor's estate and must be administered under bankruptcy rules, instructing Supercinski to file a proper application once the settlement is finalized and approved.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyContingency Fee AgreementAttorney's FeesExecutory ContractAutomatic Stay ReliefCommon Fund DoctrineQuantum MeruitTexas LawPersonal Injury SettlementBankruptcy Estate
References
29
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
Sep 28, 2023

Branch, Chassidy v. Professional Care Services of West Tennessee, Inc.

This document outlines the right to appeal a Workers’ Compensation Order in Tennessee. It details a multi-step process for appellants, beginning with filing a 'Notice of Appeal' with the Clerk of the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims within thirty calendar days of the Order's filing date and serving a copy to the opposing party. Appellants must then pay a $75.00 filing fee or file an Affidavit of Indigency for a fee waiver within ten calendar days of filing the notice, with failure resulting in dismissal. The document also emphasizes the appellant's responsibility to ensure a complete record for appeal, including requesting an audio recording from the Court Clerk and filing a transcript prepared by a licensed court reporter, or a jointly prepared statement of evidence, within fifteen calendar days. The Workers’ Compensation Judge must approve the record before submission to the Appeals Board. A docketing notice is sent after the record is transmitted, granting parties fifteen calendar days to file a brief. If no timely appeal is filed, the trial court's Order becomes final after thirty days. Help from an Ombudsman is available for self-represented litigants.

Appellate ProcedureWorkers' Compensation AppealAppeal RightsFiling FeesTranscript RequirementsNotice of AppealAffidavit of IndigencyRecord SubmissionAppeals BoardTennessee Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Torres

The case involves an appeal from the trial court's award of attorney's fees to an injured employee (Appellee) under Section 408.221 of the Texas Labor Code. The Appellant, Pacific Employers Insurance Co., had initially filed a petition appealing a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision and later filed a nonsuit dismissing all claims against the Appellee. The trial court subsequently awarded attorney's fees to the Appellee. The Appellant contested this award, arguing that the employee was not a "prevailing party" because the case was disposed of by nonsuit rather than a judicial ruling on the merits. The appellate court disagreed, holding that the employee was indeed a "prevailing party" under the statute, especially given the circumstances where the insurance carrier nonsuited its claims after considerable litigation and the employee was merely defending the initial award. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to award attorney's fees.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesNonsuitPrevailing PartyStatutory ConstructionTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewInsurance CarrierEmployee RightsJudicial Review
References
12
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
Showing 1-10 of 16,617 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