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

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. ADJ2151993 (SFO 0507276)
Regular
May 18, 2018

RICHARD JOHNSON vs. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF PACIFICA

This case concerns the award of appellate costs to the City of Pacifica. The Court of Appeal previously affirmed a decision in Pacifica's favor and ordered the City of South San Francisco (CSSF) to bear Pacifica's costs. Pacifica subsequently submitted a verified petition for costs totaling $1,425.00, which included electronic filing and paper copy expenses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found Pacifica's requested costs reasonable and awarded them against CSSF.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturFirst District Court of AppealPetition for ReconsiderationArbitratorPetition for CostsAppellate CostsReimbursementVerified PetitionSubstantiation of Costs
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baird v. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

Plaintiffs Rachel M. Baird and Bonnie Porter sued their former employer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, alleging gender discrimination for being placed on a 'non-partnership track' while men were on a 'partnership track.' They initially sought $1.25 million but accepted Rule 68 offers of judgment for $37,500 each, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The court found them 'prevailing parties' but significantly reduced their requested attorneys' fees of $191,048.33 to $54,723.93, and costs to $7,506.23. This reduction was due to their limited success and weak evidence supporting their discrimination and constructive discharge claims. The court noted inconsistencies in Baird's deposition and Porter's personal reasons for leaving the firm, suggesting they realized their unlikelihood of prevailing.

gender discriminationequal pay actTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Lawattorneys' feesRule 68 offer of judgmentprevailing partylodestar calculationlimited successfee reduction
References
38
Case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Regular
Jan 07, 2011

JOYCE GUZMAN vs. MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant, Joyce Guzman. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Appeals Board's decision and the Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for review. Following this, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur awarding costs to the applicant under Labor Code section 5811. The applicant requested $2,686.60 in appellate costs, which the Appeals Board found reasonable and awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMilpitas Unified School DistrictKeenan & AssociatesAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Court of AppealRemittiturPetition for ReviewItemized RequestReasonable Costs
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
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. ADJ11299000
Regular
Oct 09, 2019

ORLANDO WATKINS vs. SME STEEL CONTRACTORS INC., THE HARTFORD

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an award of additional attorney's fees and costs. Following a denial of a Petition for Writ of Review by the Second District Court of Appeal, the matter was remanded for an award of fees. The applicant's counsel and defendant's counsel stipulated to a reasonable fee amount of $4,120.88. The Board found this stipulated amount to be reasonable and issued an award accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardattorney's feescostsPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811stipulated agreementremandappellate attorney's feesHartford Casualty Insurance Company
References
1
Case No. ADJ4024660 (LAO 0887729)
Regular
Feb 03, 2017

ALFREDO COLLAZO vs. MECA NAG CORPORATION, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case to the trial level for a new decision. The WCJ erred in determining the lien claimant's entitlement to payment solely on a multiplier of Medicare rates, rather than a reasonable cost basis. The Board clarified that while the facility's charges are not subject to the Official Medical Fee Schedule, their entitlement must be based on their actual costs plus a reasonable profit. Therefore, further proceedings are required to properly assess the reasonable cost basis for the services rendered.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderLien ClaimantReasonable Cost BasisMedicare ReimbursementOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLong Term Care HospitalKunz StudyTapia
References
2
Case No. ADJ10160197 ADJ8200777
Regular
Sep 03, 2019

JOSE CARDENAS vs. COSTA VIEW FARMS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Monrovia Hospital's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original decision that the hospital was entitled to nothing further on its lien. The Board found that the hospital failed to meet its burden of proving its charges were based on a "reasonable cost basis" as required for long-term care facilities exempt from the Official Medical Fee Schedule. Expert testimony presented by both parties, particularly regarding cost-to-charge ratios derived from OSHPD data, supported the finding that the hospital's proposed methodologies did not adequately demonstrate reasonable costs. The Board affirmed that the hospital, not the defendant, bears the affirmative burden of proving the reasonableness of its lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderMonrovia HospitalCosta View FarmsZenith Insurance CompanyWCJLabor Code section 5906reasonable cost basis
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Maiorano v. Plumbing

Claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits after being injured as a plumber in New York City. Despite residing in Brooklyn, the claimant sought to have hearings in White Plains, Westchester County, for convenience. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied this request, and the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed, additionally assessing $500 in costs against the claimant’s counsel under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii). The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board Chair has authority over hearing locations and the claimant failed to provide a reasonable basis for the change of venue. The court also upheld the penalty assessment, finding substantial evidence for the Board's determination that the request lacked a reasonable basis.

Workers' Compensation LawVenue ChangeAppellate ReviewProcedural DenialCost AssessmentJudicial AuthorityAdministrative DiscretionClaimant RightsBoard DecisionAffirmation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,612 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