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. 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

Oaks v. Olympic Stain Co.

This case involves an application for the apportionment of attorneys' fees between the counsel for an injured workman and his employer, as per the Tennessee Workmen’s Compensation Act. The workman secured a $100,000 judgment from a third party, which included a $22,108.29 subrogation lien for the employer. Both the workman and the employer (represented by its compensation carrier, Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Companies) had retained separate counsel. The core dispute was whether the workman's counsel was entitled to a reasonable fee from the portion of the judgment subject to the employer's lien. The Court, interpreting T.C.A. § 50-914, ruled that a reasonable fee should be determined and then apportioned based on the services rendered. Ultimately, the Court held that the workman's counsel, L. B. Bolt, Jr. and James F. Pryor, were entitled to $3,684.71, while the employer's counsel, Robert Campbell, was entitled to his contractual fee from Fireman’s Fund.

Apportionment of attorneys' feesSubrogation lienWorkmen's Compensation ActThird party actionContingency feeEmployer's counselWorkman's counselTennessee lawStatutory interpretationFee dispute
References
1
Case No. ADJ3674520
Regular
Mar 29, 2012

Linda Elachkar vs. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Chartis Insurance Services

This case involves supplemental attorney's fees awarded under Labor Code § 5801. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review in *Northrup Grumman Corporation v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, finding no reasonable basis for the appeal. Consequently, the matter was remanded for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board to award supplemental attorney's fees to the applicant, Linda Elachkar. The parties stipulated to a fee of $4,812.50, which the Board found to be reasonable.

Supplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewReasonable BasisRemandAppeals BoardStipulationAttorney's FeeNorthrop Grumman CorporationChartis Insurance Services
References
1
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. 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. ADJ7089701
Regular
May 24, 2012

GREGORY DOLLAR vs. KERN COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF KERN

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision awards supplemental attorney's fees of $2,800.00 to applicant's counsel, Adams, Ferrone & Ferrone. The award follows a Court of Appeal order denying the defendant's petition for writ of review and remanding for supplemental fees under Labor Code § 5801. The Court of Appeal found no reasonable basis for the defendant's petition. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the fee amount.

Supplemental Attorney's FeeLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewRemandStipulationWCABAdams Ferrone & FerroneCounty of Kern Probation DepartmentFifth Appellate DistrictReasonable Attorney's Fees
References
1
Case No. ADJ6861829
Regular
Jun 13, 2012

BART JAMES JOHNSON vs. BEYETTE'S TREE CARE

This case involves a supplemental award of attorney's fees to Bart James Johnson's attorney, pursuant to Labor Code § 5801. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review, finding no reasonable basis. Consequently, the case was remanded for attorney's fees. The applicant's attorney requested $3,500.00 for ten hours of work at $350 per hour related to the writ of review. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board deemed this fee reasonable and awarded it against the uninsured employer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewRemandReasonable Attorney FeesStipulationPetition for FeeAnswer to PetitionLegal Services
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2005

In Re Balderas

This decision addresses post-confirmation attorneys' fees in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, using the Balderas case as a factual background. The debtors in the Balderas case sought modification of their plan due to payment defaults and requested $350 in attorney's fees for the motion. The court outlines the history of the Balderas' numerous modifications, moratoriums, and associated attorney fee awards, totaling $3,495, highlighting how these fees were paid out of plan distributions at the expense of creditors. The court analyzes sections 1326(b)(1) and 330(a)(4)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code to determine the reasonableness and payment method of such fees. Ultimately, the court establishes new rules for post-confirmation attorney fee awards in the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, including a $2,500 prima facie base fee, a $100 per month payment rate for additional fees, and specific guidelines for various types of motions. The current $350 fee request for the Balderas case's moratorium is approved but with caution against future similar requests.

BankruptcyChapter 13Attorneys' FeesPost-Confirmation FeesPlan ModificationCreditor DistributionsSecured ClaimsAdministrative ExpensesDebtor RepresentationFeasibility
References
26
Case No. ADJ3310545
Regular
Dec 07, 2017

LANCE GOODWIN vs. EDW APFFELS COMPANY, INC., PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an award of additional attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801. The Second District Court of Appeal previously remanded the matter for such an award after denying the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. Applicant's counsel and the defendant stipulated to reasonable attorney's fees of $8,000.00 for services rendered in responding to the petition. The Board found the stipulated amount reasonable and issued the award to the applicant's law firm.

Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801RemandStipulationAppellate Attorney's FeesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPacific Compensation Insurance CompanyEDW APFFELS COMPANYINC.
References
1
Case No. ADJ1982202
Regular
Mar 09, 2009

NOEL RIVERA vs. SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, INC., CHUBB FEDERAL INSURANCE, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a claim by Noel Rivera against Sensient Technologies Corporation. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review and found no reasonable basis for it, remanding the case for supplemental attorney fees. A stipulation between the parties was reached whereby the defendant agreed to pay $3,500.00 for these supplemental attorney fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board approved this stipulation as reasonable.

Labor Code § 5801Supplemental Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewDenial of PetitionRemittiturStipulationLump SumT. Mae YoshidaMullen & FilippiWCAB
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 9,258 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