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. VNO 0435305
Regular
Dec 14, 2007

RENEE JACKSON vs. JEWISH FAMILY SERVICES OF LOS ANGELES, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior award and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings regarding the reasonable value of services provided by lien claimant Wilshire Surgicenter, Inc. The Board found that neither party presented sufficient evidence according to the precedent set in *Kunz v. Patterson Floor Coverings, Inc.* regarding usual fees accepted by providers. The case will be reheard to allow both parties to develop evidence regarding the usual fees accepted by providers in the geographic area for the services rendered.

Wilshire SurgicenterKunzComparative Study SummaryBill Review ExpertReasonable ValueOutpatient Surgery Facility FeesMedicare Reimbursement RatesLabor Code § 4903.1(c)Due ProcessRebuttal Evidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. ADJ3584368 (AHM 0049668)
Regular
May 15, 2013

STEVE GIANNINI vs. CITY OF IRVINE

This case involves a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision concerning attorney's fees. Following a Court of Appeal order to award fees for responding to the defendant's writ of review, the parties stipulated to $3,547.12. The Board has accepted this stipulation. An award is therefore made in favor of applicant's counsel, Leonard Stern, against the City of Irvine for this appellate attorney's fee. This fee is in addition to any compensation otherwise payable to the applicant.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTEVE GIANNINICITY OF IRVINECORVEL INSURANCE COMPANYADJ3584368ADJ2266028ADJ4420242ADJ4296333ADJ1443533ADJ814285
References
1
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

Baird v. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

Plaintiffs Rachel M. Baird and Bonnie Porter sued their former employer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, alleging gender discrimination for being placed on a 'non-partnership track' while men were on a 'partnership track.' They initially sought $1.25 million but accepted Rule 68 offers of judgment for $37,500 each, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The court found them 'prevailing parties' but significantly reduced their requested attorneys' fees of $191,048.33 to $54,723.93, and costs to $7,506.23. This reduction was due to their limited success and weak evidence supporting their discrimination and constructive discharge claims. The court noted inconsistencies in Baird's deposition and Porter's personal reasons for leaving the firm, suggesting they realized their unlikelihood of prevailing.

gender discriminationequal pay actTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Lawattorneys' feesRule 68 offer of judgmentprevailing partylodestar calculationlimited successfee reduction
References
38
Case No. SDO 313688
Regular
May 06, 2008

CRESENCIO BARRERA vs. HNR FRAMING, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded a prior decision because the administrative law judge (WCJ) failed to apply the *Kunz* standard for determining reasonable facility fees for medical services. The WCJ's decision was found to be internally inconsistent and unsupported by the evidence, particularly regarding the consideration of contractually negotiated rates and usual fees accepted by other providers. The case is remanded for further proceedings and a new decision by a different WCJ.

WCABReconsiderationFacility FeesCPT CodesReasonablenessKunz v. PattersonAmbulatory Surgery CenterMedicareOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleGeographical Area
References
1
Case No. RIV 0032677
Regular
Jan 23, 2008

LUIS VALENCIA vs. VILLA AMALFIRISTORANTE, CALIFORNIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's decision regarding the reasonableness of an outpatient surgery center's facility fees. The Board reiterated that the lien claimant bears the burden of proving their charges are reasonable and that the defendant presented credible evidence rebutting the billed amount. The decision also clarified that reasonableness considers various factors beyond just the facility's usual accepted fees, and inadmissible evidence from the lien claimant was appropriately excluded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantFacility FeeReasonablenessBurden of ProofOutpatient Surgery CenterMedical Treatment ExpenseReconsiderationEvidenceAdministrative Law Judge
References
5
Case No. 04-MD-1596
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2006

In Re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation

This order by Senior District Judge Weinstein addresses legal fee allocation in a coordinated multi-district litigation against Eli Lilly & Company concerning the prescription drug Zyprexa. Following a partial settlement covering approximately 8,000 individual plaintiffs, the court adopted a proposal from special settlement masters regarding fee caps. The court modified the proposed cap, reducing it from 37.5% to 35% for most recoveries, while maintaining a 20% cap for "Track A" settlements. The special masters are granted discretionary authority to adjust fees within a range of 30% to 37.5% based on individual case circumstances, with appeal rights to the court. The decision emphasizes the court's inherent authority to supervise attorney fees, particularly in quasi-class actions and mass litigations, to ensure fairness and prevent excessive charges to clients, drawing parallels to class action rules and state laws limiting contingent fees.

Mass TortMulti-District LitigationFee AllocationContingency FeesAttorney FeesEthical SupervisionSettlementZyprexa LitigationQuasi-Class ActionJudicial Discretion
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of a prior decision concerning a class action alleging an antitrust price-fixing conspiracy by VISA, MasterCard, and their member banks related to foreign currency conversion fees. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, upholding its earlier finding that network defendants did not waive their right to arbitration because compelling arbitration would have been futile under then-existing law. Additionally, the Court denied reconsideration on several other procedural matters, including the creation of subclasses, membership of specific cardholder subclasses, representation of Diners Club and Providian cardholders, and a request for further discovery, citing the untimeliness of new arguments and the plaintiffs' failure to meet the burden of proof for class certification requirements.

Antitrust LitigationClass Action ProcedureArbitration AgreementsWaiver of ArbitrationEquitable EstoppelForeign Currency Conversion FeesReconsideration MotionSherman ActTruth in Lending ActDeceptive Trade Practices
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yeshiva University v. New England Educational Institute, Inc.

In a Lanham Act action, defendants, who prevailed after a jury trial against plaintiff Yeshiva, sought approximately $50,000 in attorney's fees. The application presented a novel question: whether a prevailing defendant is entitled to fees when the plaintiff's liability claims were asserted in good faith but the damage claims were grossly exaggerated. The court first affirmed the applicability of the Lanham Act's attorney fee provision, § 35(a), to actions involving unregistered marks, citing precedent. Despite acknowledging the plaintiff's highly exaggerated damage claims, the court determined that the case, which was close on the merits regarding the initial copying allegations, did not meet the 'exceptional cases' standard required for awarding attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant. Consequently, the defendants' application for attorney's fees was denied.

Lanham ActAttorney's FeesPrevailing DefendantExceptional CasesUnregistered MarkDamage ClaimsExaggerated DamagesGood Faith LitigationJury VerdictNon-profit Dispute
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 3,223 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