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

Ellis Ex Rel. Ellis v. Kenworth Motor Truck Co.

This case involves a dispute over a subrogation lien in a wrongful death action that was settled for $140,000. Transport Indemnity Company, the deceased's workers' compensation carrier, was apportioned $16,740 of the settlement due to its subrogation lien under Tex.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307 § 6a. Of this amount, one-third ($5,580) was awarded to the plaintiff's attorney, leaving $11,160. The plaintiff argued that Transport's subrogation lien should only extend to the portion representing recovery for loss of support, as worker's compensation benefits only compensated for loss of earning capacity, and applying it to the entire sum would be inequitable. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the issue is one of statutory construction rather than pure equity, and Texas courts consistently interpret the statute to grant a subrogation lien to the full extent of sums paid by the carrier. Therefore, the court ordered that Transport Indemnity Company is entitled to the full $11,160 by virtue of its subrogation lien.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' CompensationSubrogation LienStatutory InterpretationEquitable DoctrineTexas LawInsurance CarrierThird-Party ActionSettlementLoss of Support
References
11
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. ADJ1035201
Regular
Oct 04, 2016

VICTOR DURAN vs. DONUT INN, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board is considering rescinding an order that dismissed Metro Med Shockwave's lien claim for failure to pay a $\$100$ lien activation fee. The WCJ dismissed the lien because the fee was not paid before the lien conference, citing prior precedent. However, the lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a DWC Newsline article referencing a court order. The Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, allowing further proceedings on the lien claim.

Labor Code section 4903.06Lien activation feeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMetro Med ShockwaveFigueroa v. B.C Doering Co.Angelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionDWC NewslineReconsiderationRescind order
References
2
Case No. M2010-01262-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2013

Joshua Cooper v. Logistics Insight Corp.

This case from the Supreme Court of Tennessee addresses whether an employer's subrogation lien under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-112 includes the cost of future medical benefits. Joshua Cooper, an injured employee, sued a third-party tortfeasor, and his employer, MasterStaff, Inc., intervened to protect its subrogation lien. The Court, reviewing statutory history and prior precedents, reaffirmed its holdings in Graves and Hickman, stating that the employer's subrogation lien does not extend to speculative future medical expenses. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court, effectively denying the employer's claim for a lien on future medical benefits, was affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings concerning the actual lien amount for paid benefits.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation LienFuture Medical BenefitsThird-Party TortfeasorStatutory InterpretationSupreme Court DecisionAffirmationRemandStare DecisisLegislative Intent
References
25
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02784 [194 AD3d 691]
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

David v. David

The infant plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident. The plaintiffs sought approval for a settlement, but Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, the administrator of the infant plaintiff's mother's self-funded employee benefit plan, asserted a subrogation lien for medical expenses. The Supreme Court denied the lien, citing New York's anti-subrogation statute, General Obligations Law § 5-335. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the self-funded plan was governed by ERISA, which preempts the state anti-subrogation statute. Consequently, the subrogation lien was deemed enforceable against the settlement proceeds.

ERISA PreemptionSubrogation LienSelf-Funded Employee BenefitsPersonal Injury SettlementAnti-Subrogation StatuteAppellate DivisionInfant CompromiseAutomobile AccidentReimbursement ClaimsNew York Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ8 156794
Regular
Jan 12, 2017

NURY PEREZ vs. BLUE RIVER DENIM, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding an order that dismissed a lien claim due to a failure to pay a $100 lien activation fee. The lien claimant, Premier Psychological Services (PPS), claims computer issues prevented timely payment. While the WCJ recommended denial of reconsideration, the WCAB may rescind the dismissal if PPS pays the activation fee within ten days of this notice. If paid, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06WCABadministrative law judgereconsiderationrescissiondismissallien conferenceCompromise and Releaseindustrial injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Engineered Air v. LeCesse Bros. Contracting, Inc.

This is a concurring opinion regarding a class action lawsuit filed under Article 3-A of the Lien Law. The plaintiff, a material supplier to subcontractor G.A. Dyce, Inc., sued LeCesse Brothers Contracting, Inc., the contractor, to share funds owed to Dyce. The core issue concerned LeCesse’s affirmative defense, which sought to offset legal expenses incurred in defending the action against funds owed to Dyce, based on a subcontract provision. The concurring judge agrees with the majority's decision that the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to dismiss this affirmative defense. The opinion clarifies that the plaintiff is subrogated to Dyce's rights, and LeCesse should not be allowed to deduct legal fees. It also emphasizes the distinct trust obligations under the Lien Law, clarifying that a contractor is not a guarantor for a subcontractor's creditors.

Lien LawTrust FundsSubcontractorContractorClass ActionAffirmative DefenseLegal FeesMechanics' LiensSubrogationAppellate Review
References
5
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. W2018-00218-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Memphis Light Gas & Water Division v. Tykena Watson

This appeal addresses whether nurse case management fees are recoverable as part of an employer’s workers’ compensation subrogation lien under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-112. The trial court ruled against the recoverability of these fees and also determined that the employer’s subrogation lien should be reduced by attorney’s fees awarded to the employee’s attorney. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that nurse case management services are primarily for the employer's benefit, not the employee's, and that the employee's attorney was entitled to a pro rata fee reduction from the subrogation lien due to the employer's lack of active participation in the tort action.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation LienNurse Case Management FeesAttorney's FeesThird-Party Tort ActionEmployer BenefitsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
8
Case No. ADJ7016910, ADJ7016880
Regular
Jan 25, 2017

DENNIS LEBER vs. HOWARDS APPLIANCES, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves a lien dismissal for non-payment of a $100 activation fee. The lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay based on a federal court order and a DWC Newsline. The Appeals Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, based on the interpretation that the federal court order allowed payment between November 9 and December 31, 2015. If the fee is paid, the lien claim will proceed to the trial level.

Lien activation feeLabor Code § 4903.06Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimDWC NewslineU.S. District CourtPreliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerDIR Newsline
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,640 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