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. ADJ9944340
Regular
Aug 02, 2018

MICHAEL NIELSEN vs. CITY OF SEBASTOPOL

This case involves a lien claimant, Associated Reproduction Services (ARS), seeking full payment for document copying services related to an injured worker's claim. ARS argues that Labor Code section 5307.9, which limits fees for services provided within 30 days of a request, does not apply because they did not subpoena records from the employer or insurer directly. The Appeals Board rescinded the previous order, finding that the fee schedule required by Section 5307.9 was not effective when the services were rendered. The matter is returned to the trial level to determine payment of the lien under Labor Code sections 4620 and 4622, considering the defendant's obligation to timely object to contested expenses.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of SebastopolMichael NielsenRedwood Empire Municipal Insurance FundLien ClaimantAssociated Reproduction ServicesInc.Labor Code Section 5307.9Fee ScheduleMedical-Legal Expenses
References
5
Case No. ADJ4115370 (STK 0156243) ADJ2590810 (STK 0156247) ADJ7935132
Regular
Sep 05, 2013

DONALD MAGHUYOP vs. HULL'S WALNUT CREEK CHAPEL, MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an award of additional attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following a successful Petition for Writ of Review. The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the Board to determine reasonable fees for applicant's attorneys. Applicant's attorney sought $10,625.00 for 25 hours of work plus costs. The Board awarded $9,137.50 in attorney's fees, disallowing 3.5 hours for clerical tasks, and awarded the requested $529.00 in costs, for a total of $9,666.50.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental AwardAttorney's FeeAppellate CostsPermanent DisabilityCourt of AppealClerical TimeLien Claimants
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laborers Local 91, Laborers International Union v. Building Industry Employers Ass'n

Plaintiff Laborers Local 91 sought to compel arbitration against defendants Building Industry Employers Association and Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc. concerning a work assignment dispute involving Iron Workers Local 9. Laborers Local 91 alleged a violation of its collective bargaining agreement when Higgins assigned work to Iron Workers Local 9. After resolution attempts via the Impartial Jurisdictional Dispute Board (IJDB) and Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service failed, Laborers Local 91 initiated this action under the Labor Management Relations Act and the United States Arbitration Act. The court had previously ordered Iron Workers Local 9 to be joined as a defendant. Currently, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the court denies without prejudice due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the exclusivity of the IJDB forum, the Plan's intended preclusion of other remedies, and whether Iron Workers Local 9's agreement bars arbitration.

jurisdictional disputecollective bargaining agreementarbitrationsummary judgmentlabor management relations actunion disputework assignmenttripartite arbitrationImpartial Jurisdictional Dispute Boardfederal labor law
References
13
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Case No. ADJ1045902 (SFO 0500285) ADJ3255721 (SFO 0500284)
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

RONALD S. VERNA vs. CITY OF LOS ALTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

This case concerns an award of additional attorney's fees to applicant's counsel, as mandated by Labor Code § 5801 after a successful writ of review. The Court of Appeal had remanded the matter for this specific purpose. The Board reviewed the submitted time and hourly rate, disallowing certain hours for clerical work, media communication, and duplicate entries. Ultimately, the Board awarded $9,080.00 in appellate attorney's fees to applicant's counsel.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental AwardAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Certified SpecialistClerical TimeMedia CorrespondenceDuplicated EntriesAppellate Attorney's Fee
References
1
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2001

Padilla v. Frances Schervier Housing Development Fund Corp.

This case involves a plaintiff, a laborer, who suffered an injury while working on a renovation project for Frances Schervier Housing Development Fund Corporation, whose construction manager was Humphreys & Harding, Inc. The plaintiff was guiding a concrete sump housing into an excavation vault when it slipped, amputating two toes. The plaintiff initiated an action against the owner, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and specific Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR part 23). The owner, in turn, filed a third-party action against Humphreys & Harding for indemnification. The motion court initially dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, but on appeal, the decision was reversed. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently raised triable issues of fact regarding violations of Industrial Code sections 23-9.2 (g), 23-9.4 (e) (1) and (2), and 23-9.2 (b) (2), which were concrete enough to support a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6).

Construction accidentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code violationsSummary judgment appealAppellate reviewNondelegable dutyTriable issues of factPersonal injuryConstruction site safetyBackhoe operation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Labor Relations Board v. Goodman

This case involves an appeal concerning the interaction between the National Labor Relations Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Appellants, the NLRB and the Union, challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that shielded James M. Goodman and Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation (GASC) from labor law liabilities based on Goodman's Chapter 7 discharge. The District Court affirmed that Goodman's personal discharge protects him from pre-petition monetary and non-monetary obligations arising from a rejected collective bargaining agreement. However, the court reversed the Bankruptcy Court's finding that GASC was also shielded, concluding that Goodman's discharge does not protect GASC from alleged obligations. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings, including a determination of the alter-ego status of Goodman and GASC under applicable labor law standards.

BankruptcyChapter 7National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementDischargeable DebtsPrimary JurisdictionLabor LawEmployer Obligations
References
16
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06413
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

Cunha v. Crossroads II

Evandro Cunha, a laborer, sustained personal injuries at a construction site when an excavator rolled over his legs. He sued Crossroads II, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on several Industrial Code provisions, specifically 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (k), 23-9.4 (h) (4), 23-9.4 (h) (5), and 23-9.5 (c). The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The Supreme Court denied this motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order by granting summary judgment dismissing the cause of action based on 12 NYCRR 23-9.4 (h) (5), and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment regarding the other cited Industrial Code provisions.

Labor LawPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentExcavator AccidentIndustrial Code ViolationSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewWorkplace Safety RegulationsPrima Facie CaseLiability
References
12
Case No. 2016-334 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by 2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. from an amended order that granted summary judgment to 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, dismissing a complaint to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued it had paid the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant failed to prima facie demonstrate proper denial of payment for services billed under CPT codes 97026 and 97016. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding these specific CPT codes was denied.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentCPT CodesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewInsurance LawMedical BillingAcupunctureSuffolk CountyPayment Dispute
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 8,375 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