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

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. ADJ10138143
Regular
Sep 01, 2017

SHIRLEY BROWN vs. MERCY MEDICAL CENTER MERCED COMMUNITY CAMPUS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, amending a prior decision. The Board ruled that attorney's fees for the applicant's counsel should be based entirely on their reasonable hourly rate and hours worked, not a combination of hourly rate and a percentage of the recovery. This decision clarified that fees owed by an employer under Labor Code § 4064(c) for an unrepresented employee's attorney are determined by the reasonableness of hours and hourly rate, not the indemnity awarded. Consequently, the applicant's attorney was awarded $10,758.75.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's FeesHourly RatePercentage of RecoveryLabor Code § 4064Declaration of Readiness to ProceedStipulations with Request for AwardQuantum MeruitIndemnity
References
1
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

Hamilton v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employee's Pension Plan

Plaintiff Gary Hamilton, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on June 26, 2014, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), alleging improper denial of pension benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel. He sought additional credited service for his tenure at non-foundry plants, contending that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should modify his pension calculation as if his entire service had been at a designated foundry location. The defendants, General Motors Corporation Hourly-Rate Employee’s Pension Plan and General Motors, LLC, argued that the Plan's terms unambiguously require actual employment in designated foundry classifications for enhanced benefits and that the MOU's purpose was solely to facilitate employee transfers, not to alter pension benefits. The Court, applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, found the defendants' interpretation of both the Plan and the MOU to be reasonable. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's claims in their entirety.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyEquitable EstoppelSummary JudgmentPlan AdministratorCredited ServiceFoundry JobsMemorandum of UnderstandingArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
30
Case No. ADJ7415342
Regular
Jul 01, 2013

Maggie Davis vs. Kern Medical Center, County of Kern

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Kern's Petition for Reconsideration regarding an award of attorney's fees. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to award applicant's attorney $770.00 based on 2.2 hours at $350.00 per hour for deposition representation. The Board found the defendant's arguments regarding the hourly rate, comparing it to physician and defense attorney rates, to be irrelevant and frivolous. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that applicant attorneys' fees are distinct from defense counsel's billing practices and established $350.00 per hour as reasonable for a Certified Workers' Compensation Specialist in the Bakersfield office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code §5710Deposition Attorney's FeesHourly RateCertified SpecialistBakersfieldKern Medical CenterCounty of KernApplicant Attorney
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aslam v. Malen & Associates, P.C.

This case concerns Mohammad Aslam's complaint against Malen & Associates for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). After a settlement agreement, the court was tasked with determining reasonable attorneys' fees for the plaintiff's counsel, James Bahamonde. The court applied the 'presumptively reasonable fee' method, analyzing Bahamonde's hourly rate and the hours reasonably expended. The court made several reductions to the requested hours for tasks such as researching jury instructions, preparing exhibits, preparing billing records, and trial preparation. Ultimately, the court awarded Bahamonde $63,927.50 in attorneys' fees and $1,162.50 in costs, affirming the plaintiff's significant success in the FDCPA claim.

FDCPAAttorneys' FeesSettlement AgreementStatutory DamagesActual DamagesHourly RateLodestar MethodSecond CircuitConsumer ProtectionDebt Collection
References
17
Case No. VNO 545629
Regular
Apr 10, 2008

FREDERICK HALLER vs. CITY OF RIVERSIDE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF RIVERSIDE WORKERS' COMPENSATION OFFICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that established a reasonable attorney fee rate of $225 per hour. The applicant's counsel sought a higher rate, arguing that deposition fees were discretionary and citing internal guidelines from other district offices. The Board found the $225 rate reasonable based on local standards and the WCJ's discretion under Labor Code Section 5710.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ discretiondeposition feesreasonable rateattorney feesabuse of discretionLabor Code Section 5710removalRiverside
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barcia v. Sitkin

This corrected opinion addresses the reasonable hourly rates for attorneys Beverly Gross and David Raff for services rendered between June 1, 1979, and June 30, 1983, in a series of class action cases challenging the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's practices. Presided over by Judge Robert L. Carter, the court evaluated the attorneys' experience and prevailing market rates, referencing Supreme Court precedents like Blum v. Stenson and Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air. The decision sets David Raff's hourly rate at $185 and Beverly Gross's at $140, denying requests for additional enhancements based on exceptional quality or contingency. However, the court granted interest on unpaid interim amounts from March 5, 1985, and awarded attorneys' fees for the time spent on this fee application.

Attorneys' FeesHourly Rate DisputeCivil Rights ActUnemployment CompensationClass Action LitigationSettlement NegotiationsMarketplace RatesJudicial DiscretionFee EnhancementDelay in Payment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1992

Camardo v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan

Plaintiff John A. Camardo, injured in 1983, sought disability pension benefits from the General Motors Hourly-Rate Employees Pension Plan after being declared a 'voluntary quit' by General Motors Corporation. The Plan denied his application for forms, leading to a lawsuit under ERISA. Magistrate Judge Heckman recommended denying the defendant's motions for dismissal and summary judgment and awarding summary judgment to the plaintiff. District Judge Arcara adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissed the defendant's objections for procedural non-compliance, and ordered the Plan Administrator to provide the plaintiff with the necessary application forms for disability pension benefits.

ERISADisability PensionSummary Judgment MotionLocal Rule ViolationReport and RecommendationAdministrative RemediesStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Quit ClauseCollective BargainingEmployee Benefits
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2005

County of Suffolk v. Coram Equities, LLC

The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to compel the defendant to pay prevailing hourly wage rates for a building construction project. The case stemmed from a lease agreement where the defendant, as owner, agreed to construct a building and lease space to the plaintiff, including a clause for prevailing wages "in accordance with New York Labor Law Section 220." Both the Supreme Court and the appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that Labor Law § 220 did not apply to the project. The courts reasoned that the construction did not qualify as a "public works project," a necessary condition for the application of Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the defendant's failure to pay prevailing wages was not a breach of the contractual agreement.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Works DoctrineLease Contract DisputeLabor Law 220Contractual ObligationAppellate AffirmationConstruction WagesSuffolk County CourtsNew York State LawSpecific Performance Action
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 6,233 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