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 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

In Re Golden Distributors, Ltd.

The debtor, Golden Distributors, Ltd., in a Chapter 11 case, moved to classify employee benefit claims, while several unions cross-moved for full administrative expense treatment. The court addressed the priority of sick leave, personal holidays, vacation, and severance pay for both union and non-union former employees. It concluded that most of these claims, including all severance pay and union vacation pay, qualify as administrative expenses or similar high-priority claims. However, all such employee claims were deemed subordinate to the super-priority secured liens held by the post-petition lenders.

BankruptcyChapter 11Administrative ExpensesEmployee BenefitsSeverance PayVacation PayCollective Bargaining AgreementSuper-priority LiensDebtor in PossessionUnions
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Terranova v. Lehr Construction Co.

In 2009, Claimant sustained a right knee injury at work, leading to workers' compensation benefits and a 10% schedule loss of use award. Concurrently, Claimant settled a third-party action for $173,500. A dispute arose concerning the carrier's credit and the apportionment of litigation expenses from the third-party settlement, specifically whether Burns v Varriale or Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund applied to a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that Matter of Kelly controlled, denying Claimant ongoing payments for litigation expenses. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that for schedule loss of use awards, future benefits are ascertainable, making Matter of Kelly applicable.

Schedule Loss of UseThird-Party SettlementWorkers’ Compensation BenefitsLitigation ExpensesCarrier CreditApportionment of Counsel FeesFuture BenefitsIndependent Medical ExaminationOrthopedist ReportCourt of Appeals Precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wood v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Anthony N. Wood, severely injured while employed by the Town of Stillwater Highway Department, settled a third-party action against Firestone Tire and Rubber Company for $1.1 million. The workers' compensation carrier, Saratoga County Self-Insured Plan, had a lien of over $63,000 for compensation and medical payments. Wood moved to apportion legal fees and expenses against the carrier's lien, arguing that the carrier's equitable share should consider the present value of estimated future benefits it would no longer have to pay, citing *Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund*. The Saratoga County Self-Insured Plan opposed, disputing the calculation of future benefits and arguing for consideration of potential future death benefits. The court, guided by *Kelly*, found the respondent's arguments lacked merit and applied a formula that included the lien amount plus the discounted value of future payments saved by the carrier. The court determined an equitable apportionment of $114,112.67, concluding that the offset exceeded the carrier's lien due to the substantial benefits the carrier received from the extinguishment of future obligations.

ApportionmentLegal FeesThird-Party ActionLien OffsetFuture Benefits CalculationEquitable ApportionmentSettlement ProceedsEconomist Expert WitnessPermanent DisabilityCarrier Liability
References
10
Case No. ADJ7112948
Regular
Mar 30, 2017

LYLE BYNUM vs. VALLEJO TRANSIT, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award. The Board issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against the defendant's attorney and insurance company for alleged bad faith actions. These actions included filing a petition for reconsideration with inaccurate and unsupported references to evidence, misrepresenting medical opinions, and asserting meritless contentions. The WCAB is considering sanctions of up to $2,000 and reasonable expenses due to these alleged violations of labor code and board rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10561Findings and AwardWCJBus DriverBack InjuryLeft Lower Extremity Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. ADJ6484208
Regular
Aug 21, 2018

ERIK LOPEZ vs. SERFIN CONSTRUCTION, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior order, finding that lien claimant South Bay Neurological Diagnostic Center was not entitled to reimbursement for a sleep study. The Board determined the sleep study and associated reports were not valid medical-legal expenses because they were not requested by a medical-legal evaluator and were not incidental to the production of a medical-legal report capable of proving or disproving a disputed medical fact. Therefore, the lien claim was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law Judgeindustrial injurysleep disorderlien claimantmedical-legal expenseAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Report and Recommendation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Matter of Johnson (Commr. of Labor)

The Niagara Falls Housing Authority (NFHA), a nonprofit governmental agency, appealed two decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board found NFHA liable for unemployment insurance contributions for a claimant and others, determining an employer-employee relationship existed. The claimant worked as an outreach worker and field supervisor for NFHA's SNUG program. Despite NFHA's contention of exercising only incidental control, the appellate court found substantial evidence supporting the employer-employee relationship, noting NFHA's direct involvement in hiring, training, setting pay, requiring timesheets, reimbursing expenses, providing office space, and overseeing claimant's work. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision.

Unemployment insuranceEmployer-employee relationshipControl testNonprofit organizationGovernmental agency liabilitySNUG programOutreach workerField supervisorGrant fundingAdministrative appeal
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brothers v. Tyco International, Ltd.

The plaintiffs contracted with ADT for a home security system. During installation, a worker employed by Tyco negligently damaged a waste disposal pipe, leading to a slow leakage and a mold condition in the plaintiffs' house. After recovering over $40,000 from their homeowner’s insurance for remediation expenses, the plaintiffs initiated this action against ADT and Tyco to recover consequential and incidental damages not covered by their insurance, such as those from mold exposure and life disruption. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. The court found that the contract between the plaintiffs and ADT contained an unequivocal exculpatory provision, stating the defendants would not be liable for losses due to water intrusion or mold resulting from the security system installation, which the plaintiffs failed to rebut.

home security systemnegligent installationwaste pipe damagemold damageconsequential damagesincidental damagesexculpatory clausecontract disputesummary judgmentproperty damage
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 788 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