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

Matter of Fernandez v. Royal Coach Lines, Inc.

Claimant's counsel appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that reduced their previously awarded counsel fees from $2,800 to $450. The Board found the counsel's fee application, form OC-400.1, deficient as it failed to provide specific dates and time spent for each service, as mandated by 12 NYCRR 300.17 (d) and Board bulletin Subject Number 046-548. Additionally, counsel failed to disclose a prior $900 fee award. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in reducing the fees due to the non-compliant application. The court also clarified that prior holdings suggesting no requirement for time spent on services, such as in *Matter of Pavone*, should no longer be followed.

Counsel Fee ReductionWorkers' Compensation Board AppealFee Application Deficiencies12 NYCRR 300.17Appellate DivisionAdministrative DiscretionPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityPrior Fee DisclosureMatter of Pavone Overruled
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1996

Prior v. County of Saratoga

Plaintiff commenced an action alleging excessive force during his arrest by Shawn Nolan and Keith Clinton of the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department, claiming battery and Federal civil rights violations under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. A jury found Nolan used excessive force but did not intentionally violate plaintiff's rights, awarding $5,000 for pain and suffering and $429.66 for medical expenses. Plaintiff then moved for counsel fees as a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1988, and Supreme Court awarded $7,500. Both parties appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the plaintiff was a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1988 because his Federal constitutional claims met the two-pronged Gibbs test, and the reduction of the requested counsel fee was an appropriate exercise of discretion given the limited success on the nonconstitutional issue.

Excessive ForceCivil Rights4th Amendment5th Amendment14th AmendmentBatteryCounsel FeesPrevailing PartyFederal ClaimsState Claims
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grace PP.

This case involves an appeal from a County Court order in Saratoga County. The order directed respondent, as attorney-in-fact for Grace PP. (an alleged incapacitated person, AIP), to pay counsel fees to the AIP's assigned counsel and to the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner, a licensed social worker, initiated a Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding to appoint a guardian for Grace PP., who suffered from dementia and required nursing home placement. County Court appointed a temporary guardian and ordered the respondent to pay counsel fees. The respondent appealed, arguing the AIP was indigent due to Medicaid benefits. The appellate court found no error or abuse of discretion in the County Court's award of counsel fees and affirmed the order, noting the record lacked evidence of the AIP's indigence despite her Medicaid recipient status.

Counsel FeesIndigenceMedicaid BenefitsAttorney-in-factGuardian AppointmentIncapacitated PersonDementiaNursing Home PlacementAppellate ReviewSaratoga County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maxwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This is an appeal concerning the award of counsel fees in a no-fault automobile accident case. The plaintiff appealed the Trial Term's decision denying an excess counsel fee award, which was initially granted at the statutory maximum. Plaintiff argued that the case involved novel issues related to an exclusion clause and the basis for disclaimer under No-Fault Law, warranting higher fees. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Term's decision, finding that the issues, while skillfully handled, were not sufficiently novel or unique to justify an excess fee under 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (8) (vii), as they relied on established contract law and statutory construction. The court also rejected the plaintiff's constitutional challenge regarding the impairment of contracts, clarifying that the fee limitation only applies to the insurer, not the client, and dismissed an ex parte communication claim as outside the record.

No-Fault BenefitsCounsel FeesExcess Fee AwardStatutory InterpretationContract Law PrinciplesConstitutional ChallengeImpairment ClauseAppellate DivisionInsurance RegulationsLegal Practice
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Shea v. Icelandair

A WCLJ found a claimant had a mild permanent partial disability but voluntarily retired, authorizing medical treatment without lost wage awards. The carrier disputed medical and transportation expenses, leading to a Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 agreement of $17,500 for claimant's expenses, including a $2,200 counsel fee. The WCLJ and Workers’ Compensation Board denied the counsel fee, arguing medical/travel awards are not 'compensation' subject to a lien. The appellate court reversed, broadly interpreting 'compensation' to include medical expenses to ensure representation availability for injured employees. The court remitted the case for the Board to exercise its discretion in reviewing the requested counsel fee.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesMedical ExpensesStatutory InterpretationLienPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary RetirementBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2015

Matter of Curcio v. Sherwood 370 Management LLC

The claimant, a building engineer, sustained a work-related back and neck injury, initially classified as a permanent total disability by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) with awarded counsel fees. The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) modified this, finding a permanent partial disability with a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity and reduced counsel fees due to an improperly completed application. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial medical evidence supporting a partial disability and a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity based on the claimant's age, education, work history, and functional abilities. The court also upheld the reduction of counsel fees due to the attorney's failure to accurately complete the required fee application form.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning Capacity LossWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCounsel FeesMedical EvidenceVocational FactorsOC-400.1 ApplicationAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionMedical Impairment Guidelines
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Marshall v. Savannah Sausage Corp.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board disallowing a claimant's application for death benefits as untimely and denying counsel fees. James Marshall, a marketing consultant, sustained serious injuries in a 1977 motor vehicle accident and later died in 1981. His widow, the claimant, filed a death claim in 1984, which was deemed untimely by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently affirmed by the Board, as it was not filed within two years of Marshall's death. Additionally, the Board denied counsel fees, ruling that compensation benefits would not exceed the third-party settlement Marshall received, thus rendering further legal efforts futile. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the untimely filing of the death claim and concurring that no counsel fees lien was applicable.

Death BenefitsTimeliness of ClaimCounsel FeesThird-Party SettlementWorkers' Compensation LawInsurance CarrierDisability ClaimAppealLienWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

A claimant sustained a work-related back injury and sought continued medical treatment, which was initially authorized. Disputes over authorization led the claimant to retain an attorney. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge authorized continued medical treatment but denied counsel fees, stating no "money passing" occurred. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board unconstitutionally applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, misinterpreted the statute regarding fee payment from medical benefits, and abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees must be paid from "compensation," defined as a money allowance, and medical benefits are not considered "compensation" for this purpose, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Herring

County Court granted Joseph F. Cawley enhanced assigned counsel fees under "extraordinary circumstances" according to County Law § 722-b, exceeding statutory limits. The County of Broome appealed, arguing a question of statutory construction regarding whether "foregoing limits" in § 722-b applied to hourly rates or only total amounts. The appellate court found this argument unpersuasive, viewing it as an attempt to appeal a discretionary award. Citing precedent, including Matter of Werfel v Agresta and Matter of Director of Assigned Counsel Plan of City of N. Y. (Bodek), the court affirmed that trial court orders on enhanced fees are administrative and not subject to appellate judicial review on the merits. Consequently, the appeal brought by the County of Broome was dismissed with costs.

Assigned Counsel FeesExtraordinary CircumstancesStatutory InterpretationAppellate JurisdictionJudicial DiscretionCounty Law 722-bAdministrative ReviewJusticiable ControversyHourly RatesFee Schedules
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 10,003 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