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

Jenkins v. General Motors Corp.

The defendant, General Motors Corporation, moved the court for an order granting costs and expert witness fees related to discovery, specifically for depositions of their expert witnesses by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel, Clements & Ducharme, P.C., disclaimed responsibility, arguing that the plaintiffs themselves were solely liable for these costs. The court analyzed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) and the attorney-client relationship, noting that plaintiffs' attorneys had previously advanced fees, indicating an intent to incur liabilities jointly with their clients. The court agreed with the defendant's policy argument to prevent discovery abuses. Consequently, the court ordered both the plaintiffs and their counsel, Clements & Ducharme, P.C., to be held jointly and severally liable for the $5,350.25 in discovery costs and fees, entering judgment in favor of General Motors Corporation.

Discovery CostsExpert Witness FeesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C)Attorney LiabilityClient LiabilityJoint and Several LiabilityRetainer AgreementAgency RelationshipPrincipal-AgentLegal Fees
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2011

Errol S. v. Shelidah D.

The case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order from New York County, dated September 1, 2011, which granted the father's petition to modify a joint custody arrangement and awarded him sole custody of his two children, with visitation rights to the respondent mother. The prior order had established joint custody with primary physical custody to the mother. The father sought modification due to concerns about the mother's inability to meet the children's basic hygiene and medical needs, as well as safety issues during their school commute. The Referee's decision to grant sole custody to the father was unanimously affirmed on appeal, citing a sound basis for credibility determinations against the mother, whose testimony was contradicted by multiple parties including the children's dentist. The court found that the father provided a stable home and addressed the children's needs, while the mother consistently failed to do so. The attorneys for the children also supported the affirmation, noting the children's satisfaction and well-being in the father's care.

Family LawChild CustodyJoint Custody ModificationSole Custody AwardParental FitnessChildren's WelfareMedical NeglectHygiene ConcernsCredibility DeterminationsAppellate Affirmation
References
4
Case No. ADJ237189 (RIV 0058701)
Regular
May 22, 2009

DONALD K. SMITH vs. CITY OF SANTA ANA

This case concerns an applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration regarding appellate costs and attorney's fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, which had affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the heart and prostate but barred the skin cancer claim due to the statute of limitations. The Board ordered the applicant's attorney to reimburse the applicant $390 improperly solicited and received, while ordering the defendant to pay appellate costs of $382.79 upon confirmation of the reimbursement. The Board declined to increase the attorney's fee, finding it already exceeded typical ranges and that the attorney had not demonstrated entitlement to more.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemittiturStatute of LimitationsSkin CancerHeart InjuryProstate CancerPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeeAppellate Costs
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Butcher

This case addresses three handicapped petitions seeking tuition and maintenance costs at the Summit Residential Treatment Facility under sections 232 and 234 of the Family Court Act. Judge Rudolph Di Blasi found all petitioners qualified for benefits. The court affirmed that tuition costs are reimbursable without parental means testing, but maintenance costs are subject to parental ability to pay. Crucially, the court asserted its discretion to evaluate the reasonableness of charges by service providers, rejecting the City of New York's argument that it must pay inflated costs. The decision detailed inflated administrative costs at Summit and deemed certain staffing ratios an unnecessary luxury at public expense. The court subsequently ordered specific, adjusted amounts for tuition and maintenance for each petitioner, directing the City of New York as the initial payor and the State of New York for partial reimbursement.

Family Court ActHandicapped ChildrenTuition ReimbursementMaintenance CostsParental ContributionJudicial DiscretionReasonableness of ChargesPublic FundsSummit Residential Treatment CenterEducational Costs
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Berger

The petitioner's motion to compel the respondent to proceed to arbitration, which was sought pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the discharge or layoff of certain employees, was denied. The order was unanimously affirmed, and the respondent was awarded $10 in costs and disbursements.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion DeniedOrder AffirmedEmployee DischargeLayoffNew York State Board of Mediation
References
1
Case No. ADJ1700793 (SAC 0307437) ADJ3714832 (SAC 0307399)
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

JUANITA BRADLEY (Deceased) vs. COUNTY OF PLACER

This case involves a dispute over liability for a medical-legal report cost. The defendant seeks reconsideration of a prior award holding them responsible for Dr. Adelberg's $4,237.50 report. The defendant argues the judge ignored a prior order for an Agreed Medical Evaluation (AME) and that the applicant's attorney improperly proceeded with Dr. Adelberg's exam. The Board granted reconsideration, preliminarily finding it may be inequitable to place the full cost on the defendant, and intends to split the expense between the defendant and applicant's attorney. A dissenting opinion argues the defendant's own correspondence shows an ongoing dispute regarding the AME, supporting the original award of liability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical-Legal ReportAgreed Medical EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluatorJoint Findings and AwardLabor Code Section 4062(a)Stipulation and OrderEquitable PowersLien Claimant
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2004

In re Whitney H.

In three child protective proceedings, the mother appealed disposition orders from the Family Court, Queens County. The court had found she neglected her children, placing Whitney H. and Brittany J. with the Administration for Children's Services and Royesha B. with her biological father. The appeals concerning Whitney H. and Brittany J.'s placement were dismissed as academic because the placement period had expired. However, the orders of disposition regarding Whitney H. and Brittany J. were affirmed insofar as reviewed, and the order for Royesha B. was fully affirmed. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie evidence of neglect due to the mother's alcohol abuse, citing an incident where she struck Brittany J. and locked Whitney H. outside.

Child NeglectAlcohol AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Custody PlacementPrima Facie EvidenceNegative InferenceAppellate ReviewExpired PlacementFact-Finding OrderDisposition Order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Chendo O.

The Family Court initially found a father not guilty of sexually abusing his twin daughters but neglected them by permitting abuse. The petitioner moved to modify this order under Family Court Act § 1061, presenting new evidence from a counselor and social worker. After a hearing, the court vacated the neglect finding and found the respondent had abused both children. On appeal, the court affirmed this decision, ruling that Family Court Act § 1061 applies to both fact-finding and dispositional orders. It also concluded that modifying such orders for good cause promotes the best interests of children, rejecting the respondent's arguments regarding evidence sufficiency and due process during child interviews.

Family LawChild AbuseChild NeglectAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationFamily Court ActEvidence AdmissibilityExpert TestimonyWaiver of ArgumentBest Interests of Children
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Fairpoint Communications, Inc.

Verizon Communications, Inc. appealed a bankruptcy court's confirmation order that included an injunction preventing Verizon from pursuing non-derivative claims against third parties, which could adversely affect FairPoint's bankruptcy estate. FairPoint, which acquired landline operations from Verizon, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to substantial debt. The reorganization plan featured a 'Verizon Injunction' designed to protect FairPoint's assets from claims where FairPoint might be liable for indemnification or contribution. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to issue this injunction, holding that such contingent indemnification obligations directly impact the bankruptcy estate. The court also deemed Verizon's alternative argument, concerning the absence of 'unique circumstances,' as equitably moot, citing the substantial consummation of the reorganization plan and Verizon's failure to seek a stay of the confirmation order.

BankruptcyChapter 11 ReorganizationInjunctionsSubject Matter JurisdictionEquitable MootnessThird-Party ClaimsIndemnificationContributionAppellate ReviewDistrict Court Decision
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 25,831 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