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. ADJ10146503
Regular
Oct 20, 2018

ALAN KOON vs. RZ PLUMBING, INC.; AMTRUST

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to applicant's attorney, Robert Rassp, pursuant to Labor Code section 5801. The Second District Court of Appeals had previously remanded the matter for this purpose. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed Rassp's request for 13.25 hours of work and $865.59 in costs, totaling $6,165.59. The Board disallowed two hours of travel time due to lack of clarity on the reasonableness and nature of the activity. Ultimately, the Board awarded Rassp a total of $5,365.59 in attorney's fees and costs.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feescostsremandWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardbill of particularsreasonableness of feestravel time deductionawarded amounttrial level return
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dugandzic v. New York City School Construction Authority

Mirolsav Dugandzic, a painter, sued multiple defendants, including the NYCSCA, Trataros Construction, and Crowe Construction, after slipping on paint remover at Fort Hamilton High School in 1992. He alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), and Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the accident was due to his work, they lacked notice of a dangerous condition, and no Labor Law violation. The court found the motions timely and dismissed the Labor Law section 241(6) claim, as the Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d) was deemed inapplicable to the plaintiff's self-created slippery condition. However, the court denied the dismissal of the Labor Law section 200 claim against some defendants, citing a factual dispute over supervisory control. The City's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims against it due to a lack of evidence of its supervision or control.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetySummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimConstruction Site AccidentSlippery FloorEmployer LiabilitySupervisory ControlHazardous Materials
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. City of New York

Plaintiff Thomas Messina, an electrician, sustained leg injuries after stepping into an unguarded drainpipe hole while working at Yankee Stadium. He and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York Yankees, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but later reversed its decision upon reargument, deeming the nature of the drainpipe hole a factual question for the jury. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that the interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation is a matter of law. The court concluded that the drainpipe hole, approximately 12 inches in diameter and 7-10 inches deep, did not constitute a "hazardous opening" under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b), thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction site accidentDrainpipe holeHazardous openingSummary judgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1)Falling hazardsAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationQuestion of law vs. fact
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2011

Capuano v. Tishman Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Philip Capuano, a carpenter employed by Donaldson Acoustics, suffered a back injury on February 26, 2007, after slipping on a sprinkler pipe while installing sheetrock at a construction site owned by Yeshiva University. Capuano and his wife subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), specifically citing Industrial Code provisions regarding tripping hazards and inadequate illumination. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) liability. Defendants appealed, questioning the existence of violations and Capuano's credibility. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that plaintiffs established a prima facie case of Labor Law § 241 (6) violations, and defendants failed to raise a material issue of fact.

Labor LawConstruction Site AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentTripping HazardInadequate LightingIndustrial Code ViolationNondelegable DutyWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1992

Biszick v. Ninnie Construction Corp.

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Duchess County, which granted summary judgment motions by several defendants, including Halmar Construction Corp. and International Business Machines Corporation. These motions dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, specifically causes of action based on Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly dismissed as it relied on general safety standards, which are insufficient under this section. The Labor Law § 200 claim was also correctly dismissed because the alleged defect originated from a subcontractor's methods, and the defendants lacked supervisory control over the operation. The court found no merit in the plaintiffs' remaining arguments.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Construction SafetyWorkplace SafetyNondelegable DutySubcontractor LiabilityAppellate AffirmationNew York Supreme Court
References
4
Case No. ADJ3550549 (LAO 0884192)
Regular
Sep 22, 2016

JACK DUPONT (Dec'd), ANYAWAN DUPONT (Widow) vs. C.R. ENGLAND, INC.; XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by BROADSPIRE

This case involves a remand from the Court of Appeals to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code Section 5801. Applicant's attorney and the defendant's attorney jointly stipulated to an award of $11,600.00 to resolve this issue. The WCAB approved this stipulation and returned the matter to the trial level.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feesWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardremandedstipulationapplicant's attorneydefendant's attorneyjoint lettertrial levelaward
References
0
Case No. ADJ2567272 (AHM 0105012)
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

, Applicant, FELIX NINO MOTA vs. ALLGREEN LANDSCAPE; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by FARA Adjusting Services

Applicant's attorneys requested $51,900 in attorney's fees under Labor Code Section 5801 for work related to a writ of review. The Appeals Board found the declarations supporting the request inadequate due to lack of itemization and justification for the hours and rates. Consequently, the Board may award a fee of up to $16,000, but reserves the right to award substantially less or nothing at all due to the potentially inflated nature of the initial request. Applicant's attorneys must provide detailed itemizations and show good cause to receive any fee.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feespetition for writ of reviewAppeals Boarddeclarationsitemized billingshourly ratecertified workers' compensation specialistclerical tasksunreasonably inflated
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 9,326 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