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. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
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. 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. ADJ1927786
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

LUIS CISNEROS vs. GCL CORPORATION, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant, Joyce Altman Interpreters, Inc., seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The applicant sustained an industrial injury to his left knee and back, and his claim was settled via compromise and release. The WCAB denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's award for the lien claimant's services. While the lien claimant argued the awarded rate was too low and excluded preparation, travel, and waiting time, the WCAB found their submitted evidence insufficient to prove a higher reasonable market rate. The WCAB concluded the awarded rate was reasonable and the lien claimant failed to meet their burden of proof.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderCompromise and ReleaseInterpreting ServicesReasonable Market RateBurden of ProofPreponderance of the EvidenceClear and Convincing Evidence
References
3
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
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
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. ADJ9416808
Regular
Jan 22, 2020

GRACIELA GARCIA vs. RNB FURNITURE, INC., EMPLOYERS PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a lien claimant, Joyce Altman Interpreters, seeking reconsideration of a decision denying their lien. The administrative law judge found the lien claimant failed to prove the market rate for their interpretation services. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's reasoning that the lien claimant did not provide adequate evidence, such as witness testimony or detailed methodology, to establish the market rate as defined by regulations. The claimant's arguments regarding presumptive reasonableness and waiver were rejected.

Lien claimantMarket rateBurden of proofFunctional capacity evaluationReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judgeInterpreter servicesAD rule 9795.1
References
3
Case No. ADJ1158684 (GOL 0099195)
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

CAROLINA VELA vs. SERVICE MASTER CBM, AMERICAN ALL-RISK LOSS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to correct a clerical error, reducing the lien awarded to Lorena Ortiz-Schneider from $4,025.00 to $1,995.00. The Board also denied Associated Reproduction Services' petition, affirming the WCJ's decision to award copy charges at a reasonable rate of 20 cents per page, referencing precedent established by *Kunz* and *Sweet*. This decision clarifies the correct lien amount and upholds the application of reasonable rates for reproduction services.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantInterpreting ServicesCopy ChargesReasonableness of ChargesMedical-Legal ExpensesClerical ErrorDecision After ReconsiderationKunz v. Patterson
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,817 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