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. Herring

County Court granted Joseph F. Cawley enhanced assigned counsel fees under "extraordinary circumstances" according to County Law § 722-b, exceeding statutory limits. The County of Broome appealed, arguing a question of statutory construction regarding whether "foregoing limits" in § 722-b applied to hourly rates or only total amounts. The appellate court found this argument unpersuasive, viewing it as an attempt to appeal a discretionary award. Citing precedent, including Matter of Werfel v Agresta and Matter of Director of Assigned Counsel Plan of City of N. Y. (Bodek), the court affirmed that trial court orders on enhanced fees are administrative and not subject to appellate judicial review on the merits. Consequently, the appeal brought by the County of Broome was dismissed with costs.

Assigned Counsel FeesExtraordinary CircumstancesStatutory InterpretationAppellate JurisdictionJudicial DiscretionCounty Law 722-bAdministrative ReviewJusticiable ControversyHourly RatesFee Schedules
References
4
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
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. 02-17-00448-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2019

Texas Workforce Commission and the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts v. Taufiq Ahmed Zikreel Ahmed Bank of America, N.A. Mayfair Station, LLC American Business Lending, Inc. Inland American Arlington Riverview Limited Partnership City of Fort Worth Fort Worth Independent School District Tarrant County Tarrant County College District Tarrant County Hospital District Tarrant Regional Water District And Unknown Members, Successors, and Assigns of Murray Investment Company

The Texas Workforce Commission and the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts appealed a trial court's final judgment regarding the disbursement of excess proceeds from a tax-lien-foreclosure sale. They contended that the trial court erred by denying their motion for a new trial, asserting improper service of the petition to disburse excess proceeds and non-compliance with statutory notice requirements. The appellants successfully demonstrated that their nonappearance was due to accident or mistake and presented a meritorious defense. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court rendered its excess-proceeds judgment after insufficient statutory notice. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Tax-lien foreclosureExcess proceeds disbursementStatutory noticeDefault judgmentMotion for new trialAppellate reviewCraddock elementsTexas Tax CodeCivil procedureDue process
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. SAU2262762
Regular
Sep 17, 2019

KEVIN TUCKER vs. E.L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION CO., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns whether the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) must pay a medical lien assigned to EDS Financial Services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied EDS's petition for reconsideration, upholding a prior ruling that issue preclusion bars EDS from relitigating the lien's status as a "covered claim." The Board found that the identical issues of whether the assigned lien constituted a covered claim under Insurance Code section 1063.1 were actually litigated and decided in a previous case, *Wanda Fullylove*. EDS's arguments regarding separate statutory provisions and the nature of assignments were rejected, as prior litigation fully addressed the claim's covered status under CIGA's statutory framework, including the exclusion for assignee claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGACovered ClaimIssue PreclusionCollateral EstoppelInsurance Code Section 1063.1(c)(1)(F)Insurance Code Section 1063.1(c)(9)(B)AssigneeLien Claimant
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Dir.(bodek)

This case addresses the appealability and reviewability of compensation orders issued under County Law § 722-c. The dispute arose from services provided by Hillel Bodek, a social worker, to indigent defendants in New York County, for which the Supreme Court ordered the City of New York to pay $100 per hour, often exceeding statutory norms due to 'extraordinary circumstances'. The Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan for New York City sought reconsideration and fee reduction, citing budget constraints and lower prescribed rates, but was unsuccessful at the Supreme Court and Appellate Division. This Court, after granting leave to appeal, affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that such compensation orders are administrative in nature and not subject to judicial review on their merits by an appellate panel.

Compensation OrderAppellate ReviewCounty Law § 722-cAssigned Counsel PlanSocial Worker FeesExtraordinary CircumstancesJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewNon-reviewable OrdersIndigent Defense
References
7
Case No. 09-06-569 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2007

Facility Insurance Corp., a Successor in Interest to the Texas Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool v. Anthony Zenon and Neurobehavioral Resources, Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses an appeal involving Facility Insurance Corp., as Successor in Interest to the Texas Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool (Appellant), and Anthony Zenon and Neurobehavioral Resources, Ltd. (Appellees). The parties jointly requested the Court to vacate the judgment rendered by the trial court and remand the cause for the entry of a new judgment, in accordance with their reached agreement. The Court, finding the motion compliant with Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2), granted the request. As a result, the judgment of the trial court was vacated without delving into the merits of the case, and the matter was sent back to the 60th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, for further proceedings in line with the parties' settlement agreement. All costs incurred were assessed against the respective parties.

TexasCourt of AppealsVacatedRemandedSettlement AgreementWorkers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureMemorandum OpinionTrial Court JudgmentJoint Motion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Matzner

The claimant, an injured truck driver, received workers' compensation benefits from Hartford Insurance Group following an accident. Hartford, without strict compliance with Workers' Compensation Law § 29, subd 2, regarding notice by personal service or registered mail and specific statutory language, settled its subrogation claim with Geico for $600. The claimant subsequently moved to set aside this settlement, arguing its invalidity due to Hartford's non-compliance with statutory assignment prerequisites. The court ruled that Hartford's failure to adhere strictly to the statute meant there was no valid assignment of the claim. Consequently, the claimant's motion to set aside the settlement was granted.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionSubrogationSettlement DisputeStatutory ComplianceNotice RequirementsAssignment of ClaimEmployee RightsInsurance CarrierWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levenson v. Lippman

This case addresses whether the Chief Administrative Judge exceeded his authority by amending 22 NYCRR 127.2 (b) to permit administrative judges to review and modify trial judges' awards of compensation to assigned counsel that exceed statutory limits. Plaintiffs, assigned counsel, challenged the amendment, arguing it unconstitutionally created an appellate court by transferring review power. The Supreme Court upheld the amendment, finding the Chief Administrative Judge acted within constitutional and statutory authority. The Appellate Division reversed, but this Court reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court's judgment. The Court affirmed that such compensation awards are administrative acts not subject to judicial review, and the amendment validly fills an administrative gap, thus upholding the Chief Administrative Judge's regulatory power.

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawJudicial AdministrationAssigned CounselAttorney FeesAppellate JurisdictionRulemaking AuthorityChief Administrative JudgeTrial CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,248 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