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

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a prior decision concerning a class action alleging an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy by VISA, MasterCard, and their member banks related to foreign currency conversion fees. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, upholding its earlier finding that network defendants did not waive their right to arbitration because compelling arbitration would have been futile under then-existing law. Additionally, the Court denied reconsideration on several other procedural matters, including the creation of subclasses, membership of specific cardholder subclasses, representation of Diners Club and Providian cardholders, and a request for further discovery, citing the untimeliness of new arguments and the plaintiffs' failure to meet the burden of proof for class certification requirements.

Antitrust LitigationClass Action ProcedureArbitration AgreementsWaiver of ArbitrationEquitable EstoppelForeign Currency Conversion FeesReconsideration MotionSherman ActTruth in Lending ActDeceptive Trade Practices
References
43
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05964 [209 AD3d 596]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2022

Pirozzo v. Laight St. Fee Owner LLC

Plaintiff Paul Pirozzo sought summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Laight Street Fee Owner LLC, Laight Street Fee Owner II LLC, and Sciame Construction, LLC, which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. The plaintiff established a prima facie case by demonstrating that the scaffold he was working on collapsed without an apparent reason. The defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, either by failing to lock scaffold pins or remaining on the scaffold while it was moved, were deemed unavailing. The court noted that these actions, even if proven, would amount to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and there was no evidence of specific instructions to the plaintiff that were disobeyed.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold collapseSole proximate causeComparative negligenceWorkers' compensation Form C-2Hearsay objectionPersonal knowledgeRecalcitranceAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liebman v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance

A physician, acting as plaintiff, brought a jury trial action against an insurance company, the defendant, under the New York State No-Fault Law to recover fees for surgical procedures and subsequent hospital visits, as well as attorneys' fees. The core dispute revolved around whether certain surgical procedures (arthroscopy, arthrotomy, excision of torn medial meniscus) were separate and distinct for billing purposes, and if post-operative hospital visits constituted reimbursable care or included follow-up care under the Workers’ Compensation Board medical fee schedule. The jury found arthroscopy and arthrotomy to be separate procedures, but arthrotomy and excision were not. They also determined the hospital visits were follow-up care. The court, finding the issues novel and unique, awarded the plaintiff $4,425 plus interest in attorneys' fees, exceeding the statutory maximum.

No-Fault LawInsurance ClaimMedical Billing DisputeAttorneys' FeesJury TrialSurgical ProceduresWorkers' Compensation ScheduleNovel and Unique IssuesOrthopedic SurgeryArthroscopy
References
7
Case No. ADJ3999556 (STK 0205067)
Regular
Aug 16, 2016

MARTIN ORNELAS vs. BEUTLER CORPORATION, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the defendant's writ of review, finding no reasonable basis for the petition and remanding for attorney's fees. Applicant's attorney sought $6,000 based on 15 hours of work, which the defendant contested due to a procedural argument. The Board reviewed the filings and found the requested fee award reasonable. Consequently, the defendant is ordered to pay applicant's attorney $6,000 for services related to the appellate proceedings.

Labor Code Section 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesReasonable BasisRemandApplicant's AttorneyDefendant's AnswerAppellate Court DocketVerified PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2010

John Giugliano, DC, P.C. v. Merchants Mutual Insurance

Plaintiff John Giugliano, DC, EC., as assignee of Laura Hebenstreit, initiated this action to recover first party no-fault benefits from defendant Merchants Mutual Ins. Co. The core dispute, following a trial on June 30, 2010, centered on the plaintiff's billing practices under the New York Workers' Compensation Medical Fee Schedule, specifically regarding the use of surgical CPT codes for chiropractic procedures. Defendant argued against the use of surgical codes and duplicate billing for a specific CPT code, while plaintiff maintained these practices were justified because the procedures were not listed under the chiropractic fee schedule and involved distinct treatment areas. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the procedures were properly billed according to the Fee Schedule, thereby entitling the plaintiff to reimbursement.

No-Fault BenefitsChiropractic BillingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleCPT CodesSurgical ProceduresCo-Surgeon BillingInsurance ReimbursementMedical Fee Schedule DisputesSpinal ManipulationMandibular Fracture
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1979

Hogg v. Workers' Compensation Board

An attorney, acting as the petitioner, sought legal fees from the Workers' Compensation Board for services he provided to clients whose disability benefits were reinstated after his intervention. When the Board did not act on his requests, he initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel the Board to consider his claims and establish a proper procedure for attorney fee applications. Special Term dismissed his petition, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that the Board's prior denial of his fee requests rendered the issue of compelling consideration moot. Furthermore, the court concluded it lacked the authority to order the Board to create a new application procedure for counsel fees.

Attorney feesDisability benefitsWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR Article 78MootnessJudicial authorityAdministrative procedureAppealDismissalLegal representation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 1984

Scotia Associates v. Bond

The court addresses whether legal fees are 'incurred' to allow a tenant to recover counsel fees under Real Property Law § 234, even if the attorney worked pro bono and the initial summary proceeding was dismissed on procedural grounds. The court affirmed the retroactive application of Real Property Law § 234 and determined that a procedural dismissal can constitute a 'successful defense' if a reasonable time has passed without further litigation from the landlord. Crucially, the court ruled that legal fees are 'incurred' when an attorney performs services, creating a liability, even if collection is initially foresworn due to the client's financial situation. Consequently, the court awarded the tenant $1,500 in reasonable attorneys' fees.

Landlord-Tenant LawAttorneys' FeesReal Property Law § 234Pro Bono ServicesStatutory InterpretationProcedural DismissalRent ControlSuccessful DefenseLease AgreementsStatutory Tenancy
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brentwood Pain & Rehabilitation Services, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance

This opinion addresses whether Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedures are subject to the same fee limitations as X-rays under New York's no-fault auto insurance law. Plaintiffs, a group of MRI service providers ("Providers"), argued that applying x-ray fee schedules to MRIs is improper and violates insurance contracts. Defendants, numerous insurance companies ("Insurers"), along with the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) and Department of Insurance (DOI), contended that the fee limitations for multiple diagnostic x-ray procedures (Ground Rule 3 of the WCB Fee Schedule) should also apply to MRIs. The court, deferring to the interpretations of the WCB and DOI, found their application of Ground Rule 3 to MRIs to be reasonable. Consequently, the court granted the Insurers' motion for summary judgment, denied the Providers' cross-motion for summary judgment, and denied the Providers' motion for class certification as moot.

MRIX-rayNo-Fault InsuranceFee ScheduleWorkers' Compensation BoardDepartment of InsuranceRegulatory InterpretationSummary JudgmentClass ActionDiagnostic Imaging
References
35
Case No. ADJ543664
Regular
Oct 05, 2010

Timothy Escalera vs. PROGRAPHICS, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Stipulations and Award order that omitted his attorney's fee. The original judge approved the stipulations for a shoulder and neck injury but failed to address the fee due to a procedural defect in notice. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and returned the case to the trial level. This allows for proper proceedings to consider and award the applicant's attorney fee, emphasizing the proper use of procedural rules to avoid delays.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations and AwardIndustrial InjuryRight ShoulderNeckWarehouse WorkerAttorney FeeWCJReport and Recommendation
References
0
Case No. 04-MD-1596
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2006

In Re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation

This order by Senior District Judge Weinstein addresses legal fee allocation in a coordinated multi-district litigation against Eli Lilly & Company concerning the prescription drug Zyprexa. Following a partial settlement covering approximately 8,000 individual plaintiffs, the court adopted a proposal from special settlement masters regarding fee caps. The court modified the proposed cap, reducing it from 37.5% to 35% for most recoveries, while maintaining a 20% cap for "Track A" settlements. The special masters are granted discretionary authority to adjust fees within a range of 30% to 37.5% based on individual case circumstances, with appeal rights to the court. The decision emphasizes the court's inherent authority to supervise attorney fees, particularly in quasi-class actions and mass litigations, to ensure fairness and prevent excessive charges to clients, drawing parallels to class action rules and state laws limiting contingent fees.

Mass TortMulti-District LitigationFee AllocationContingency FeesAttorney FeesEthical SupervisionSettlementZyprexa LitigationQuasi-Class ActionJudicial Discretion
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 4,953 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