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
Feb 05, 1980

In re the Claim of Ross v. Standard Milling Co.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on February 5, 1980, which approved a $50 attorney’s fee as a lien upon an award made to the claimant. The claimant had sustained a back injury in March 1978 and received compensation payments from the carrier. After retaining an attorney, a hearing in May 1979 established accident, notice, and causal relationship, formalizing the award already paid by the carrier. The carrier contested the attorney's fee as a lien, arguing the claimant had already received the full award. The Board affirmed the lien, citing relevant case law and Section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesLienAwardAffirmed DecisionStatutory InterpretationNew York LawBoard DecisionInsurance CarrierLegal Services
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castleberry v. Hudson Valley Asphalt Corp.

This case concerns an application by a plaintiff, injured in 1973, for the apportionment of attorney's fees incurred in a third-party action. The plaintiff, who receives weekly workers' compensation benefits from Utica Mutual Insurance Co., secured a $75,000 settlement after an initial judgment was set aside on appeal. The central issue was whether the compensation carrier, Utica Mutual, should bear the full amount of the attorney's fees for the $75,000 settlement, thereby vacating its $20,402 lien. The court, exercising its discretion under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29, determined that since the entire settlement benefited the carrier by reducing its future obligations, the carrier should be responsible for all attorney's fees, and its lien was consequently vacated.

Attorney's Fees ApportionmentLien VacationThird-Party SettlementInsurance Carrier LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 29Subrogation RightsEquitable ApportionmentJudicial DiscretionStatutory BenefitWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
0
Case No. ADJ1035201
Regular
Oct 04, 2016

VICTOR DURAN vs. DONUT INN, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board is considering rescinding an order that dismissed Metro Med Shockwave's lien claim for failure to pay a $\$100$ lien activation fee. The WCJ dismissed the lien because the fee was not paid before the lien conference, citing prior precedent. However, the lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a DWC Newsline article referencing a court order. The Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, allowing further proceedings on the lien claim.

Labor Code section 4903.06Lien activation feeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMetro Med ShockwaveFigueroa v. B.C Doering Co.Angelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionDWC NewslineReconsiderationRescind order
References
2
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. ADJ4702870 (LAO 0757820)
Regular
May 20, 2016

Rubie Johnson vs. Los Angeles County Mental Health

This case involves sanctions imposed on lien claimant David Silver, M.D., and his representatives for failing to appear at a properly noticed lien conference without good cause. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Board) granted reconsideration to affirm the sanctions and attorney fees awarded. The Board found that the excuses provided for the non-appearance were unreasonable and constituted bad faith actions under Labor Code section 5813. Consequently, Silver and his representatives were ordered to pay $\$250.00$ in sanctions to the General Fund and $\$2,100.00$ in attorney fees to the defendant.

Labor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561WCAB Rule 10770.1Lien ConferenceFailure to AppearBad Faith ActionsSanctionsAttorney's FeesPetition for ReconsiderationJoint and Several Liability
References
1
Case No. ADJ7106368; ADJ7211996
Regular
Apr 19, 2013

ISRAEL GUDINO vs. CHI-CHI'S PIZZA INC., INSURANCE CO OF THE WEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The claimant failed to pay the lien activation fee before the scheduled lien conference and filed their petition 26 days after the WCJ's decision, exceeding the 25-day deadline. The Board also intends to impose $272.00 in attorney's fees against the lien claimant, hearing representative, and associated services for frivolous and bad-faith tactics.

Lien activation feePetition for reconsiderationTimelinessLabor Code section 5813Attorney feesDismissalRemovalWCJEAMSHearing representative
References
5
Case No. ADJ7271033
Regular
Jan 25, 2017

JENNIFER LAWSON vs. GLEN IVY DAY SPA, COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed lien claimant Proex Diagnostics' lien for failure to pay a \$100 activation fee. Proex argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a federal court order and DWC guidance. The WCAB's notice indicates they intend to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days of the notice. If rescinded, the lien claim will return to the trial level for further proceedings.

Proex DiagnosticsGlen Ivy Day SpaCompWest Insurance CompanyBerkshire Hathaway Homestate CompaniesLien Activation FeeLabor Code Section 4903.06Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJReconsiderationCompromise and Release
References
1
Case No. ADJ7016910, ADJ7016880
Regular
Jan 25, 2017

DENNIS LEBER vs. HOWARDS APPLIANCES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves a lien dismissal for non-payment of a $100 activation fee. The lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay based on a federal court order and a DWC Newsline. The Appeals Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, based on the interpretation that the federal court order allowed payment between November 9 and December 31, 2015. If the fee is paid, the lien claim will proceed to the trial level.

Lien activation feeLabor Code § 4903.06Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimDWC NewslineU.S. District CourtPreliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerDIR Newsline
References
1
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 6,292 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