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

Claim of Joslin v. City of Albany Fire Department

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the method of payment for his hearing loss benefits, specifically challenging the biweekly installment plan. The claimant argued that Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb, which governs occupational loss of hearing claims, mandated a different payment method. The court rejected this contention, asserting that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (m), which covers schedule awards for hearing losses generally, and § 49-cc, which directs occupational loss of hearing compensation to align with § 15 (3), govern the payment. Consequently, the court affirmed that the claimant was entitled to biweekly scheduled payments, consistent with other schedule loss awards.

Hearing lossWorkers' CompensationOccupational diseaseSchedule awardBiweekly paymentsStatutory interpretationAppealCompensation benefitsWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2015

Alex v. KHG of San Antonio, LLC

This Memorandum Opinion addresses the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs following a jury verdict in their favor. Plaintiffs Alexis Alex and Nicolette Prieto were awarded damages, and subsequently sought $185,646 in attorneys' fees and $21,913.27 in costs. Presiding Judge Royce C. Lamberth applied the lodestar method, adjusting the requested hourly rates for the plaintiffs' attorneys (Robert Debes, Martin Shellist, and Rick Prieto) and reducing some billed hours, including for travel time and efforts to amend the complaint for additional parties. The court also considered the Johnson factors, ultimately determining that no further adjustment to the lodestar was necessary. As a result, the court awarded a total of $140,283.50 in attorneys' fees and the full requested $21,913.27 in costs, amounting to a total award of $162,196.77 to plaintiffs' counsel.

Attorneys' FeesCostsLodestar MethodJohnson FactorsFLSAWage and Hour DisputePrevailing PartyHourly RatesTravel TimeLegal Assistants
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Marchese v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Claimant, injured in October 1997, initially received full wages from their employer, then workers' compensation benefits after employment termination. Following an award of benefits in February 2000, a dispute arose regarding the payment of claimant's counsel fee. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the fee should be paid in installments from continuing payments to the claimant, rather than from the portion reimbursing the employer. Claimant appealed this decision, arguing that continuing payments were subject to adjustment and thus not an award of compensation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's broad discretion under Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 and finding no unfairness in the payment method, as the award was sufficient to cover both employer reimbursement and the attorneys' lien.

Attorney FeesWorkers' Compensation LawLien on CompensationContinuing PaymentsBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewEmployer ReimbursementAward Payment MethodStatutory InterpretationCounsel Fee
References
2
Case No. 00 Civ. 8166
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. Eversley

Plaintiff Beatrice Morris was sexually assaulted by corrections officer Gilbert Eversley in April 1999 while she was an inmate. She filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Eversley. After two trials, Morris was awarded $1,000 in compensatory and $15,000 in punitive damages. Morris moved for attorneys' fees and costs, seeking $295,818.00 in fees and $58,228.23 in costs. Eversley argued the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) capped fees, but the court held that the PLRA cap did not apply to this case. Applying the lodestar method, the court awarded Morris $154,900 in fees and $25,000 in costs, for a total of $179,900.

Prison Litigation Reform ActAttorneys' FeesLodestar MethodCivil RightsSexual AssaultCorrections Officer MisconductEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentDamages AwardPro Bono Representation
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2015

Flores v. Mamma Lombardi's of Holbrook, Inc.

This FLSA class action involved over 4,000 restaurant workers who were unlawfully denied overtime compensation. The court approved a $1.375 million settlement for the class members, deeming it procedurally and substantively fair despite a few objections. However, the court significantly reduced the requested attorney's fees from one-third of the settlement ($458,333) to $92,974.90. This reduction was due to concerns regarding counsel's unprofessional conduct, including undisclosed involvement in drafting objections to the very settlement they negotiated, impermissible billing practices, and inflated hourly rates. The judge emphasized the importance of the lodestar method and transparency in fee applications, ultimately applying an across-the-board reduction to counsel's claimed hours and rates.

FLSA Class ActionWage and Hour DisputeOvertime CompensationAttorney's Fees ReductionClass Action SettlementJudicial ScrutinyLodestar MethodProfessional MisconductRestaurant IndustryNew York Labor Law
References
0
Case No. 45
Regular Panel Decision

Prichard v. Ledford

Plaintiff Cheryl Prichard sought an award of additional attorney's fees after the defendants' unsuccessful appeal to the Sixth Circuit. Defendant Don Ledford Pontiac Buick, Inc. failed to file a timely response, thus waiving opposition. District Judge Edgar ruled that Prichard, as the prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), was entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees incurred during the appeal. Applying the "lodestar" method, the Court awarded $3,490.00, calculated from 34.9 hours at a rate of $100.00 per hour. However, the plaintiff's claim for $758.42 in incidental out-of-pocket expenses was not awarded as attorney's fees but was referred to the Clerk of Court for consideration as taxable costs.

Attorney's FeesLodestar MethodPrevailing PartyCivil RightsEmployment LawFee ShiftingMotion PracticeAppellate CostsLitigation ExpensesStatutory Interpretation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bleecker Charles Co. v. 350 Bleecker Street Apartment Corp.

This case involves a declaratory judgment action under the Condominium and Cooperative Conversion Protection and Abuse Relief Act. The court previously awarded summary judgment to Bleecker Charles Co., the sponsor of a co-operative conversion project, ruling against 350 Bleecker St. Apt. Corp., the co-operative corporation, regarding an ineffective lease termination. The current "Opinion and Order" addresses the Sponsor's motion for attorneys' fees and an injunction to prevent the Co-op from passing on a portion of the fee award to the Sponsor as a shareholder. The court granted the Sponsor's motion for attorneys' fees, finding the requested amount of approximately $345,000 reasonable based on the lodestar method, and denied the motion for injunctive relief, stating that the Sponsor, as a shareholder, should bear its share of the litigation costs.

Attorneys' FeesLodestar MethodCondominium and Cooperative Conversion Protection and Abuse Relief ActDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionShareholder RightsLitigation CostsStatutory Fee ShiftingReasonable Hourly RatePrevailing Party
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tokyo Electron Arizona, Inc. v. Discreet Industries Corp.

This order addresses the plaintiff Tokyo Electron Arizona's (TAZ) application for reasonable attorney's fees and costs against defendants Discreet Industries and Ovadia Meron (Discreet), pursuant to Federal Rule 37. The court determines the appropriate award by assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended, applying the lodestar method. While acknowledging the high caliber of work, the court reduced Mr. Haug's hourly rate and applied a 10% overall reduction to the billed hours to account for potential overlap. Additionally, the court found TAZ's copying and transcript costs reasonable and partially awarded costs for a computer-generated Power Point presentation. Ultimately, TAZ was awarded $55,751.79 in fees and $5386.19 in costs, totaling $61,137.98.

Attorney's FeesCostsDiscovery SanctionsFederal Rule 37Lodestar MethodHourly RatesReasonable HoursEastern District of New YorkSouthern District of New YorkWork Product Doctrine
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. State of New York Division of State Police

This Memorandum-Decision & Order addresses Margaret A. Naughton Marshall's motion for attorneys' fees and costs after she partially prevailed in a Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the State of New York Division of State Police. The court evaluated fee applications from her two legal counsels, Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C., and Higgins, Roberts, Beyerl & Coan, P.C. Utilizing the lodestar method, the court significantly reduced claimed hours due to lack of specificity or unreasonableness. Further reductions of 50% were applied to both firms' awards, reflecting Marshall's limited overall success in the litigation. Additionally, Ruberti Firm's award was cut by another 50% due to its disqualification for a conflict of interest. Ultimately, the court granted partial attorneys' fees and costs to both firms.

Attorneys' FeesCostsTitle VIICivil Rights ActSex DiscriminationRetaliationLodestar MethodConflict of InterestDisqualificationBackpay
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1996

Luciano v. Olsten Corp.

In this memorandum decision and order, District Judge Spatt addresses the plaintiff Mary Ann Luciano's motion for attorneys' fees and costs in a gender discrimination employment action. Following a successful jury verdict for Luciano, the Court deemed her a 'prevailing party' entitled to these awards. The decision details the calculation using the 'lodestar' method, setting reasonable hourly rates for attorney Janice Goodman ($225), associate Loren Gesinsky ($135), and law student Jill Raymond ($50). The Court applied a 15% reduction to hours worked due to a contentious litigation environment and adjusted certain expense reimbursements, specifically reducing photocopying fees and excluding hotel costs. Ultimately, the plaintiff was granted $283,107.28 in attorneys' fees and $43,043.82 in costs, for a total of $326,151.10.

Gender DiscriminationEmployment LitigationAttorney's FeesCosts and DisbursementsLodestar CalculationPrevailing PartyJudicial ReviewHourly RatesLitigation ManagementLegal Billing
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 563 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