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
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. ADJ9508272
Regular
Oct 11, 2017

FERESHTEH ALAEI-NIA vs. MACY'S INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an award of additional attorney's fees and costs to applicant's counsel. The Second District Court of Appeal had previously remanded the case for such an award after denying the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. The Board reviewed the itemized request, considering factors like time, effort, skill, complexity, and the frivolous nature of the defendant's petition. Ultimately, the Board awarded $8,955.00 in attorney's fees and $120.14 in costs, totaling $9,075.14.

Writ of ReviewSupplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Appellate Attorney's FeesCase-by-case basisFrivolous PetitionIndustrial Psychiatric InjuryVenue ChallengeReasonable Hourly RateItemization of Attorney's Fees
References
1
Case No. ADJ2151993 (SFO 0507276)
Regular
May 18, 2018

RICHARD JOHNSON vs. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF PACIFICA

This case concerns the award of appellate costs to the City of Pacifica. The Court of Appeal previously affirmed a decision in Pacifica's favor and ordered the City of South San Francisco (CSSF) to bear Pacifica's costs. Pacifica subsequently submitted a verified petition for costs totaling $1,425.00, which included electronic filing and paper copy expenses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found Pacifica's requested costs reasonable and awarded them against CSSF.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturFirst District Court of AppealPetition for ReconsiderationArbitratorPetition for CostsAppellate CostsReimbursementVerified PetitionSubstantiation of Costs
References
1
Case No. ADJ3792740 (OAK 0325116)
Regular
Dec 12, 2008

BONNIE REDDRICK vs. TENET/DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant's attorney. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the determination of these costs following the denial of the defendant's petition for review. The Appeals Board awarded $152.21 in costs, representing verifiable delivery expenses, as in-house copying, mailing, and labor costs are considered overhead and not recoverable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Johnson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Supreme Court of CaliforniaItemized CostsDelivery CostsMailing CostsCopying Costs
References
4
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. ADJ6726149
Regular
Sep 07, 2018

PEDRO HERNANDEZ vs. HENKEL LOCTITE CORPORATION, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a dispute over timely filing of a declaration for lien claimants, which the Appeals Board previously ruled was timely filed under statute and regulation. The Court of Appeal has remanded the case for the Board to determine if the defendant's petition for writ of review was frivolous. The Board is now giving notice of its intention to consider imposing attorney's fees and costs on the defendant pursuant to Labor Code section 5813. Parties are invited to submit briefing on whether such an order should be made.

Labor Code section 4903.05(c)(2)WCAB Rule 10770.7timely filednext business dayLabor Code section 5813frivolous petitionattorney's feescostswrit of reviewen banc decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lake Minnewaska Mountain Houses, Inc.

Alfred B. Smiley and other members of the Smiley family sought to recover costs and attorneys' fees from the law firms of Jules Teitelbaum, P.C. and Whitman & Ransom, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The Smileys contended that these law firms brought a frivolous and bad faith action for a permanent injunction against them. The initial injunction application was dismissed by the court as "without merit and frivolous". However, this court determined that the prior statement was not the "law of the case" for the fees application. Upon review, the court found that counsel for the debtor and Marriott could have formed a reasonable belief that their injunction application was factually supported. Therefore, Smiley failed to present clear evidence that the application was brought to harass, or was unreasonable or vexatious, and the application for costs and attorneys' fees was denied.

Attorneys' FeesFrivolous LitigationBad Faith28 U.S.C. § 1927Bankruptcy Adversary ProceedingPermanent InjunctionLaw of the Case DoctrineSanctionsLitigation AbuseWater Rights Dispute
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Incantalupo v. Lawrence Union Free School District No. 15

The case concerns a motion for attorneys' fees and costs filed by Defendants against Plaintiffs and their former counsel, Robert M. Agostisi, following the dismissal of a lawsuit as frivolous. Plaintiffs had alleged that the Lawrence Union Free School District's "Consolidation Plan" to close a school and cut taxes violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by favoring Orthodox Judaism. The Court, Seybert, District Judge, previously dismissed the initial complaint as frivolous, a decision upheld on appeal. In this memorandum and decision, the Court granted the motion for fees and costs in part, finding the Plaintiffs' complaint "completely without merit" and Mr. Agostisi's conduct demonstrated bad faith due to misrepresentation of facts and the inclusion of unnecessary, stereotypical, and offensive allegations. The Court awarded the Defendants $5,000 in attorneys' fees, to be equally assessed against the Plaintiffs and Mr. Agostisi, rejecting the Defendants' request for $120,000 as unreasonable.

Attorneys FeesFrivolous LitigationSanctionsFirst AmendmentEstablishment ClauseEqual ProtectionReligious DiscriminationSchool BoardTax CutsPublic Education
References
43
Case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Regular
Jan 07, 2011

JOYCE GUZMAN vs. MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant, Joyce Guzman. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Appeals Board's decision and the Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for review. Following this, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur awarding costs to the applicant under Labor Code section 5811. The applicant requested $2,686.60 in appellate costs, which the Appeals Board found reasonable and awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMilpitas Unified School DistrictKeenan & AssociatesAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Court of AppealRemittiturPetition for ReviewItemized RequestReasonable Costs
References
3
Case No. AHM 0097527
Regular
Jun 04, 2008

WILLIAM DAVID SCOTT vs. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Following a remand from the Court of Appeal for an award of attorney's fees and costs, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant's counsel $2,500 for appellate attorney's fees and $421.68 for costs. The Board found the requested 25 hours excessive for an answer of average complexity, awarding fees based on 10 hours at $250/hour, considering the attorney's experience, the results obtained, and the case's limited complexity. Costs for printing were allowed upon review of provided receipts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesCostsLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly RateCase ComplexityItemization
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,813 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