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. No. 06-03609, No. 06-03654
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Padilla)

This case addresses how the Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure affect a mortgage lender's right to collect 'Reimbursable Expenses' in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. The Court examined the collection of such expenses both pre- and post-confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. It held that Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) governs the collection of these expenses by mortgage lenders in Chapter 13 cases, both pre and post-confirmation. The Court determined that while Section 506(b) limits pre-confirmation expenses for oversecured creditors, it does not apply post-confirmation. Furthermore, the Court found that failure to comply with Rule 2016(a) or the imposition of unauthorized expenses would entitle a debtor to relief, but that such conduct does not violate the automatic stay. The cross-motions for partial summary judgment were denied due to insufficient evidence regarding actual collection of disputed charges.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Mortgage ServicingReimbursable ExpensesAttorney FeesBankruptcy ProcedureRule 2016(a)Section 506(b)Plan ConfirmationAutomatic Stay
References
86
Case No. No. 13-7019
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (In re Lopez)

This case is a Memorandum Opinion concerning Plaintiff Marcos F. Lopez's application for compensation and reimbursement of expenses for attorney's fees incurred during a motion for sanctions against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA). The plaintiff's counsel, Kellett & Bartholow PLLC, sought $176,967.50 in fees and $2,023.41 in expenses, but PRA opposed the amount. The court determined the reasonableness of attorney's fees using the lodestar method, which involved calculating prevailing hourly rates and reasonable hours, and considering Johnson factors. The court allowed fees for defending PRA's motion for leave to appeal but disallowed fees for prosecuting the fee application itself, for issues on which the plaintiff did not prevail, for vague time entries, and for certain interoffice communications. Ultimately, the court granted in part and denied in part the application, awarding Applicant $117,760.60 in fees and $2,194.64 in expenses, totaling $119,952.24.

Attorney's FeesSanctionsDiscovery ViolationsLodestar MethodBankruptcy LawConsumer LawBilling JudgmentHourly RatesExpenses ReimbursementInterlocutory Appeal
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Cypresswood Land Partners, I

The case involves an objection by Cypresswood Land Partners, I (Debtor) to the final fee application of its former counsel, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.C. (BMP), in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Debtor alleged that BMP failed to properly disengage from representing Stephen A. Morrow, the Debtor's managing venturer, individually, and failed to adequately disclose this continued representation to the court. Additionally, the Debtor claimed BMP's final application was untimely filed, and an agreement signed by Morrow, which made him and another entity (Grace Interests, L.L.C.) liable for BMP's fees, was overreaching. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Debtor's objections, denying all compensation and reimbursement to BMP, and ordering the firm to disgorge all fees already paid. The court found that BMP violated professional conduct rules, failed to disclose conflicts, filed late without cause, and presented an overreaching agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Attorney FeesFee Application ObjectionProfessional EthicsConflict of InterestDisclosure ViolationDisgorgement of FeesUntimely FilingFiduciary Duty
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Simpson v. Glen Aubrey Fire Co.

A volunteer fireman suffered an acute lumbosacral strain requiring frequent hospital and doctor visits. He sought reimbursement for 290 miles of travel expenses. The Workers' Compensation Board approved reimbursement at 20 cents per mile, leading to this appeal. The court examined whether travel expenses for medical treatment are reimbursable under the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law and Workers’ Compensation Law. It concluded that access to medical treatment implies the financial means to obtain it, upholding the humanitarian goals of the legislation.

Volunteer FiremanLumbosacral StrainMileage ReimbursementTravel ExpensesMedical TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawVolunteer Firemen's Benefit LawStatutory InterpretationRemedial LawLiberal Construction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Relativity Fashion, LLC

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a motion for attorneys' fees and expenses filed by Relativity Media, LLC (and its affiliates RML Distribution Domestic, LLC, Armored Car Productions, LLC, and DR Productions, LLC, collectively 'Relativity') and Mr. Ryan Kavanaugh against Netflix, Inc. The dispute arose from Netflix's refusal to execute 'Date Extension Amendments' related to a License Agreement, prompting Relativity to seek relief under Section 1142 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court previously ruled that Netflix was barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel from asserting its claimed contractual rights to distribute films before theatrical release. In this opinion, the Court determined that Relativity was the 'prevailing party' under California Civil Code Section 1717 and the License Agreement's fee provision. Consequently, Relativity is entitled to reimbursement for its own reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. However, the Court denied Mr. Kavanaugh's request for reimbursement of his counsel's fees and expenses, concluding that he was not a party to the License Agreement and did not meet the exceptions for non-signatories to recover fees. The Court awarded Relativity $818,547.48, comprising $795,732.50 in attorneys’ fees and $22,814.98 in litigation expenses, against Netflix.

Attorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesContract LawCalifornia Civil Code Section 1717Bankruptcy Code Section 1142Prevailing PartyLodestar MethodHourly RatesJudicial EstoppelRes Judicata
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. United Uniform Co.

The plaintiff appealed the denial of their motion for reimbursement of expenses and attorney's fees under T.R.C.P. 37.03. This motion stemmed from the defendant's objections to requests for admissions concerning medical causation, which necessitated the plaintiff taking depositions of two doctors for trial proof. The trial court initially denied worker's compensation benefits for one alleged accident and awarded medical expenses for another, but denied the motion for expenses and fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for expenses, noting that the plaintiff failed to provide a complete record for review and that expert medical opinion is not discoverable under T.R.C.P. 36. Furthermore, the appellate court granted the defendant's request for damages, deeming the plaintiff's appeal frivolous under T.C.A. § 27-1-122.

Discovery SanctionsRule 37.03Rule 36Appellate ProcedureWorker's Compensation BenefitsMedical Expert TestimonyEvidentiary StandardsAbuse of Discretion StandardFrivolous AppealsCost Reimbursement
References
3
Case No. 2016-03-1427
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2017

Eaves, Darlene v. Ametek, Inc.

Applicant Darlene Fredia Eaves filed motions for contempt and payment of medical expenses against Ametek, Inc. and Trumbell Insurance Company, seeking a decision on the record. The central issues were whether Ametek was in contempt for failing to authorize treatment ordered by Dr. Harold Cates and if Ms. Eaves was entitled to reimbursement for past medical expenses. The Court denied Ms. Eaves' Motion for Contempt, finding Ametek complied with utilization review procedures. However, the Court granted her Petition for Payment of Medical Expenses, concluding she demonstrated likelihood to prevail on reimbursement for past medical expenses incurred due to the work-related injury. Ametek is ordered to repay Ms. Eaves' private health insurer and reimburse her for out-of-pocket expenses.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesContemptUtilization ReviewKnee InjuryAuthorized Treating PhysicianDenial of BenefitsReimbursementExpedited HearingMedical Necessity
References
2
Case No. SFO 0438557 SFO 0438562
Regular
May 05, 2008

LISA BURKE vs. WINTERLAND PRODUCTIONS, HARTFORD INDEMNITY & ACCIDENT COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether reimbursed expenses should be included in calculating an applicant's temporary disability indemnity rate. The Board reversed the prior award, ruling that reimbursed expenses for meals, lodging, and fuel are special expenses, not remuneration, and therefore should not be included in calculating the applicant's average weekly wage. The decision clarifies that such reimbursements do not constitute "advantages received by the injured employee as part of his remuneration" under Labor Code section 4454.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTemporary Disability IndemnityReimbursed ExpensesEarnings CalculationLabor Code Section 4454RemunerationSpecial ExpensesAverage Weekly WageCumulative TraumaConcert Tour Salesperson
References
9
Case No. 2016-06-1429
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2017

Jackson, Eldon B. v. Express Services, Inc

Mr. Eldon B. Jackson sought payment for past medical expenses through an expedited hearing, claiming a recurrence of costochondritis was caused by his work for Express Services, Inc. The employer argued the injury was not primarily work-related and costochondritis was a pre-existing condition. The Court found Mr. Jackson failed to provide expert medical proof establishing a causal link between his employment and the condition's recurrence, which is required for non-obvious cases. Furthermore, Mr. Jackson also failed to present the actual medical bills for which he sought payment. Consequently, the Court denied his request for reimbursement of medical expenses but allowed for the possibility of presenting additional proof in the future.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesExpedited HearingCostochondritisCausationPre-existing ConditionExpert Medical ProofTennesseeMisdiagnosisAortic Dissection
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,634 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