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

Jackson v. New York City Department of Transportation

The claimant, who sustained work-related injuries on December 20, 2011, retained Joel Fredericson as a licensed representative. Fredericson initially received a $2,450 fee in 2012. After further proceedings and an award of $202,689.44 to the claimant, Fredericson applied for an additional fee of $28,000 for 61 hours of work. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) subsequently awarded Fredericson $10,700. Fredericson appealed this to the Workers’ Compensation Board, requesting an increase to $16,500. The Board, however, reduced his fee to $450, citing an insufficient and inaccurate fee application (form OC-400.1) with significant discrepancies compared to his earlier submission. This court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's broad discretion in approving counsel fees and upholding the reduction due to the severe deficiencies in Fredericson's fee application.

Fee DisputeAttorney FeesRepresentative FeesWorkers' Compensation LawBoard DiscretionFee ApplicationForm OC-400.1Counsel FeesAppellate ReviewSchedule Loss of Use
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pavone v. Ambassador Transport, Inc.

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in June 1999 and subsequently retained the law firm Ervin, McCane & Daly for representation before the Workers’ Compensation Board. In February 2003, the firm sought a $4,800 fee, which was approved by a workers' compensation law judge despite claimant's objections. A Board panel later affirmed this decision, and the claimant's request for reconsideration or full Board review was denied, leading to this appeal. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in approving the attorney's fee. It noted that for contested matters with fees over $450, a detailed accounting of time is not mandated by 12 NYCRR 300.17 (f). The Court concluded that the fee was reasonable, less than 10% of the total award, and considered claimant's financial status, thus the Board's approval was not arbitrary or capricious.

Attorney Fee DisputeAdministrative LawWorkers' Compensation ProcedureAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionBoard Panel DecisionFee CalculationLegal EthicsNYCRR RegulationsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Headlee Management Corp.

This memorandum decision addresses a Chapter 7 trustee's motion to disgorge interim Chapter 11 professional fees. The trustee sought disgorgement due to the administrative insolvency of the Chapter 7 estate, which would prevent pro rata distribution to Chapter 11 administrative claimants if interim payments were retained. Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge Cecelia G. Morris denied the motion. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Code, specifically §§ 726(b) and 330(a)(5), does not provide statutory authority to compel disgorgement of interim fees solely based on administrative insolvency upon conversion. It further determined that § 105(a) cannot be used to create such a remedy when the Code already provides specific provisions for fee recovery.

BankruptcyChapter 7Chapter 11Professional FeesDisgorgementAdministrative InsolvencyInterim FeesConverted CaseBankruptcy Code Section 726(b)Bankruptcy Code Section 330(a)(5)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cummins v. North Medical Family Physicians

A claimant sustained a work-related back injury and sought continued medical treatment, which was initially authorized. Disputes over authorization led the claimant to retain an attorney. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge authorized continued medical treatment but denied counsel fees, stating no "money passing" occurred. The Workers' Compensation Board upheld this decision. The claimant appealed, arguing the Board unconstitutionally applied Workers’ Compensation Law § 24, misinterpreted the statute regarding fee payment from medical benefits, and abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that counsel fees must be paid from "compensation," defined as a money allowance, and medical benefits are not considered "compensation" for this purpose, thus finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesAttorney FeesMedical TreatmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawLienCompensation DefinitionAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
3
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. ADJ2852962 (SFO 0492897)
Regular
Jul 07, 2011

Francisco Torres vs. Foundation & Earth Retaining Systems, California Insurance Company

The Court of Appeal denied the defendant's petition for writ of review and found no reasonable basis for it. Consequently, the case was remanded for the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to award supplemental attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801. The WCAB awarded $7,500 in attorney's fees, finding the requested amount excessive and the submitted time records insufficiently detailed despite the penal nature of the statute. The WCAB also awarded $229.96 in appellate costs.

Supplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewReasonable Attorney's FeeAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811No Reasonable BasisPenal AspectUnverified Time RecordsExcessive Fees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1980

In re the Claim of Ross v. Standard Milling Co.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on February 5, 1980, which approved a $50 attorney’s fee as a lien upon an award made to the claimant. The claimant had sustained a back injury in March 1978 and received compensation payments from the carrier. After retaining an attorney, a hearing in May 1979 established accident, notice, and causal relationship, formalizing the award already paid by the carrier. The carrier contested the attorney's fee as a lien, arguing the claimant had already received the full award. The Board affirmed the lien, citing relevant case law and Section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, with costs to the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesLienAwardAffirmed DecisionStatutory InterpretationNew York LawBoard DecisionInsurance CarrierLegal Services
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wynn v. AC ROCHESTER, GM CORP.

Plaintiff James I. Wynn, Jr. filed an action alleging fraud and misrepresentation against his former employer, which was removed to federal court. Following a dispute over attorney's fees, Wynn's attorney, Nira Kermisch, moved to withdraw and asserted a retaining lien on the case file. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Larimer, addressed the validity of the lien and the contentious fee arrangement, noting the absence of a retainer agreement and Wynn's claim of a contingency fee. The court granted Kermisch's application for a retaining lien but ordered its satisfaction upon Wynn's payment of $1,500 into the court as collateral and direct reimbursement of $362.50 for out-of-pocket expenses. Additionally, the court denied Wynn's cross-motion for malpractice, citing prematurity and lack of federal jurisdiction.

Attorney's LienRetaining LienCharging LienAttorney's FeesContingency FeeQuantum MeruitMalpractice ClaimFederal JurisdictionLabor-Management Relations ActDisputed Fees
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,812 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