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. ADJ2151993 (SFO 0507276)
Regular
May 18, 2018

RICHARD JOHNSON vs. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF PACIFICA

This case concerns the award of appellate costs to the City of Pacifica. The Court of Appeal previously affirmed a decision in Pacifica's favor and ordered the City of South San Francisco (CSSF) to bear Pacifica's costs. Pacifica subsequently submitted a verified petition for costs totaling $1,425.00, which included electronic filing and paper copy expenses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found Pacifica's requested costs reasonable and awarded them against CSSF.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturFirst District Court of AppealPetition for ReconsiderationArbitratorPetition for CostsAppellate CostsReimbursementVerified PetitionSubstantiation of Costs
References
1
Case No. ADJ3792740 (OAK 0325116)
Regular
Dec 12, 2008

BONNIE REDDRICK vs. TENET/DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant's attorney. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the determination of these costs following the denial of the defendant's petition for review. The Appeals Board awarded $152.21 in costs, representing verifiable delivery expenses, as in-house copying, mailing, and labor costs are considered overhead and not recoverable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Johnson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Supreme Court of CaliforniaItemized CostsDelivery CostsMailing CostsCopying Costs
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1996

Luciano v. Olsten Corp.

In this memorandum decision and order, District Judge Spatt addresses the plaintiff Mary Ann Luciano's motion for attorneys' fees and costs in a gender discrimination employment action. Following a successful jury verdict for Luciano, the Court deemed her a 'prevailing party' entitled to these awards. The decision details the calculation using the 'lodestar' method, setting reasonable hourly rates for attorney Janice Goodman ($225), associate Loren Gesinsky ($135), and law student Jill Raymond ($50). The Court applied a 15% reduction to hours worked due to a contentious litigation environment and adjusted certain expense reimbursements, specifically reducing photocopying fees and excluding hotel costs. Ultimately, the plaintiff was granted $283,107.28 in attorneys' fees and $43,043.82 in costs, for a total of $326,151.10.

Gender DiscriminationEmployment LitigationAttorney's FeesCosts and DisbursementsLodestar CalculationPrevailing PartyJudicial ReviewHourly RatesLitigation ManagementLegal Billing
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commercial Union Insurance v. Sidore (In Re Sidore)

This memorandum and decision addresses a motion brought by Michael Sidore, a Chapter 7 debtor, to secure attorney's fees and costs. Sidore had successfully defended an earlier action by The Commercial Union Insurance Company to declare a worker's compensation overpayment nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). The Court had previously dismissed Commercial Union's complaint for lack of fraud evidence. In this decision, the Court analyzed whether the debt was a consumer debt and if fees were equitably due. It determined the overpayment was a consumer debt and that the debtor, as the prevailing party, was entitled to $2,500 in attorney's fees and $15 in costs, finding no clear inequity to prevent the award.

BankruptcyDischargeability of debtAttorney's feesConsumer debtWorkers' Compensation overpaymentFraudulent misrepresentationIntent to deceiveEquitable considerationsStatutory interpretation11 U.S.C. § 523(d)
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2008

Pugach v. M & T Mortgage Corp.

This Memorandum and Order addresses the award of attorneys' fees and costs to defendant M&T after the Court granted its motion to dismiss plaintiffs' False Claims Act claims, deeming the action frivolous and vexatious. Presiding Judge Vitaliano calculated the fees using the lodestar method, determining reasonable hourly rates for DLA Piper attorneys (Marcus, Fries, Stiefel) and paralegals. The Court reduced the total billed hours by 30% for senior attorneys due to excessiveness and duplication, excluding time spent on disciplinary proceedings and a press release. The final award for attorneys' fees totaled $81,303.83 (including $15,446.33 for electronic research), and costs amounted to $5,537.62 (for duplicating, delivery, and court file retrieval). Plaintiffs are held jointly and severally liable for these amounts, concluding the case.

False Claims ActAttorneys' FeesFrivolous LitigationLodestar MethodDismissalVexatious LitigationRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSanctionsHourly Rates
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Incantalupo v. Lawrence Union Free School District No. 15

The case concerns a motion for attorneys' fees and costs filed by Defendants against Plaintiffs and their former counsel, Robert M. Agostisi, following the dismissal of a lawsuit as frivolous. Plaintiffs had alleged that the Lawrence Union Free School District's "Consolidation Plan" to close a school and cut taxes violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by favoring Orthodox Judaism. The Court, Seybert, District Judge, previously dismissed the initial complaint as frivolous, a decision upheld on appeal. In this memorandum and decision, the Court granted the motion for fees and costs in part, finding the Plaintiffs' complaint "completely without merit" and Mr. Agostisi's conduct demonstrated bad faith due to misrepresentation of facts and the inclusion of unnecessary, stereotypical, and offensive allegations. The Court awarded the Defendants $5,000 in attorneys' fees, to be equally assessed against the Plaintiffs and Mr. Agostisi, rejecting the Defendants' request for $120,000 as unreasonable.

Attorneys FeesFrivolous LitigationSanctionsFirst AmendmentEstablishment ClauseEqual ProtectionReligious DiscriminationSchool BoardTax CutsPublic Education
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollis v. New School for Social Research

This Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves outstanding issues regarding attorney's fees and costs following a jury verdict in an age discrimination and equal pay case. Plaintiff Adamantia Pollis sued The New School for Social Research and achieved partial success. The court determined reasonable hourly rates for Pollis's lead attorney, Janice Goodman, and a paralegal. It applied reductions to the hours claimed due to partial success and the dismissal of certain claims, including the ADEA claim. Ultimately, the court awarded Pollis $142,289 in attorney's fees and $22,235.42 in costs and expenses. The New School's counter-claim for attorney's fees related to the successfully defended ADEA claim was denied, as the court found Pollis's ADEA claims were not frivolous.

Age DiscriminationEqual Pay ActAttorney's FeesCosts and ExpensesEmployment DiscriminationPrevailing PartyLodestar MethodLitigation HistoryHourly RatesSouthern District of New York
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. State of New York Division of State Police

This Memorandum-Decision & Order addresses Margaret A. Naughton Marshall's motion for attorneys' fees and costs after she partially prevailed in a Title VII sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against the State of New York Division of State Police. The court evaluated fee applications from her two legal counsels, Ruberti, Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C., and Higgins, Roberts, Beyerl & Coan, P.C. Utilizing the lodestar method, the court significantly reduced claimed hours due to lack of specificity or unreasonableness. Further reductions of 50% were applied to both firms' awards, reflecting Marshall's limited overall success in the litigation. Additionally, Ruberti Firm's award was cut by another 50% due to its disqualification for a conflict of interest. Ultimately, the court granted partial attorneys' fees and costs to both firms.

Attorneys' FeesCostsTitle VIICivil Rights ActSex DiscriminationRetaliationLodestar MethodConflict of InterestDisqualificationBackpay
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. City of New York

This Memorandum Decision and Order addresses attorneys' fees in a settled class action alleging Family Medical Leave Act violations against the City of New York. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate fee recovery for District Counsel 37 (DC 37), a union providing in-house legal services to the plaintiffs. The court examined ethical rules concerning fee-splitting between attorneys and non-lawyer organizations, concluding that a union cannot profit from legal services rendered by its salaried attorneys if the fees are deposited into its general treasury. Consequently, the court ruled that DC 37's recovery for its in-house counsel's work is limited to the actual costs incurred, rather than market rates. Plaintiffs' counsel was directed to submit precise documentation of Lewis Brisbois' reimbursement and DC 37's actual costs for a final determination of the awarded amount.

Attorneys' FeesClass ActionFamily Medical Leave ActFee-splittingEthical RulesIn-house CounselUnion RepresentationActual CostsMarket RateNew York Law
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 4,025 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