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. ADJ6550105 ADJ6777358 ADJ6777361 ADJ6976802
Regular
Oct 03, 2014

ESTHER GARCIA vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an earlier order allowing attorney fees. The Board found that Labor Code section 5710(b) only authorizes fees for depositions of the injured employee or their dependents, not for depositions of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). Therefore, applicant's counsel was not entitled to fees for attending the QME's deposition. The Board denied the petition for attorney's fees.

Labor Code $\S 5710$Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Attorney's FeesDepositionInjured EmployeeDependent BenefitsWCJContingency Fee
References
0
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. ADJ8064562, ADJ8064590, ADJ8987043
Regular
Nov 01, 2020

RICARDO ESCALANTE vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and awarded applicant's attorney $756.25 in Labor Code section 5710 fees. While the WCJ initially denied fees for three deposition appearances due to the applicant's inability to testify, the Board found the attorney acted in good faith. The Board ultimately exercised its discretion under section 5710 to allow fees for preparation and attendance time.

Labor Code 5710attorney feesdepositionsreconsiderationapplicant's attorneyWCJSEBCompromise and Releaseself-insuredcumulative trauma
References
0
Case No. POM 234030
Regular
Jul 18, 2008

CAROL ALLISON vs. DEL AMO MOBILE ESTATES, SUPERIOR PACIFIC CASUALTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded the administrative law judge's finding that Labor Code section 5710 does not allow attorney's fees for appellate work. The WCAB ruled that attorney fees are permissible under section 5710 for successfully litigating the scope of a deposition, including appellate proceedings, to protect an applicant's privacy and privilege. The case was returned to the trial level for a determination of a reasonable attorney fee amount.

Labor Code section 5710attorney feesdeposition scopeprivilegepatient-physician privilegemotion to compelpetition for removalCourt of Appealappellate reviewvocational rehabilitation maintenance allowance (VRMA)
References
12
Case No. ADJ7693237
Regular
Jun 25, 2012

NANCY SETTLES vs. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., ACE-AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a former attorney seeking reconsideration of a $300 attorney fee award in a workers' compensation case. The attorney argued he was denied notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that Labor Code section 5710 fees were not timely paid. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the attorney failed to provide proof of service to the applicant regarding his adverse interest. Additionally, any issues regarding section 5710 fees were previously resolved and are not grounds for reconsideration of the current order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's Fee LienCompromiseLabor Code Section 5710Timely PaymentAdverse InterestIndependent CounselStipulated AwardPenalty
References
0
Case No. 04-MD-1596
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2006

In Re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation

This order by Senior District Judge Weinstein addresses legal fee allocation in a coordinated multi-district litigation against Eli Lilly & Company concerning the prescription drug Zyprexa. Following a partial settlement covering approximately 8,000 individual plaintiffs, the court adopted a proposal from special settlement masters regarding fee caps. The court modified the proposed cap, reducing it from 37.5% to 35% for most recoveries, while maintaining a 20% cap for "Track A" settlements. The special masters are granted discretionary authority to adjust fees within a range of 30% to 37.5% based on individual case circumstances, with appeal rights to the court. The decision emphasizes the court's inherent authority to supervise attorney fees, particularly in quasi-class actions and mass litigations, to ensure fairness and prevent excessive charges to clients, drawing parallels to class action rules and state laws limiting contingent fees.

Mass TortMulti-District LitigationFee AllocationContingency FeesAttorney FeesEthical SupervisionSettlementZyprexa LitigationQuasi-Class ActionJudicial Discretion
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2013

Soodoo v. LC, LLC

This case involves an appeal by defendants LC, LLC, and Limrink Realty Corp. against an order dismissing their cross-claims for contribution, indemnification, and breach of contract against co-defendant Atlantic Contracting of New York, Inc. The original action was brought by an unnamed plaintiff for personal injuries sustained at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted Atlantic's motion to dismiss the cross-claims. On appeal, the court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the cross-claims stated cognizable causes of action. Consequently, the cross-claims were denied dismissal and converted into third-party causes of action.

Personal InjuryConstruction SiteCross-claimsContributionIndemnificationBreach of ContractMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate DivisionThird-Party Action
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a prior decision concerning a class action alleging an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy by VISA, MasterCard, and their member banks related to foreign currency conversion fees. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, upholding its earlier finding that network defendants did not waive their right to arbitration because compelling arbitration would have been futile under then-existing law. Additionally, the Court denied reconsideration on several other procedural matters, including the creation of subclasses, membership of specific cardholder subclasses, representation of Diners Club and Providian cardholders, and a request for further discovery, citing the untimeliness of new arguments and the plaintiffs' failure to meet the burden of proof for class certification requirements.

Antitrust LitigationClass Action ProcedureArbitration AgreementsWaiver of ArbitrationEquitable EstoppelForeign Currency Conversion FeesReconsideration MotionSherman ActTruth in Lending ActDeceptive Trade Practices
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yeshiva University v. New England Educational Institute, Inc.

In a Lanham Act action, defendants, who prevailed after a jury trial against plaintiff Yeshiva, sought approximately $50,000 in attorney's fees. The application presented a novel question: whether a prevailing defendant is entitled to fees when the plaintiff's liability claims were asserted in good faith but the damage claims were grossly exaggerated. The court first affirmed the applicability of the Lanham Act's attorney fee provision, § 35(a), to actions involving unregistered marks, citing precedent. Despite acknowledging the plaintiff's highly exaggerated damage claims, the court determined that the case, which was close on the merits regarding the initial copying allegations, did not meet the 'exceptional cases' standard required for awarding attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant. Consequently, the defendants' application for attorney's fees was denied.

Lanham ActAttorney's FeesPrevailing DefendantExceptional CasesUnregistered MarkDamage ClaimsExaggerated DamagesGood Faith LitigationJury VerdictNon-profit Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King v. Allied Vision, Ltd.

This case involves a plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees following a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff Stephen King sought fees due to defendant New Line Cinema's contempt of court for numerous violations of a Final Consent Decree concerning the misattribution of 'The Lawnmower Man' film. The District Court had previously found the defendant in contempt and awarded fees in 1994 and 1995. The Second Circuit affirmed some parts of the 1994 order but vacated others, along with the entire 1995 order, remanding the attorney's fees issue for reconsideration, specifically questioning the willfulness of the noncompliance. Upon review, this court concluded that while the defendant's conduct was negligent and contumacious, it did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard for willfulness required for an award of attorney's fees for civil contempt under Second Circuit law. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees was denied.

Civil ContemptAttorney's FeesWillfulness StandardSecond Circuit RemandConsent Decree ViolationsLanham ActFilm MisattributionThe Lawnmower ManInjunctive ReliefCompensatory Damages
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 2,683 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