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. ADJ2340102 (LAO 0751270) ADJ4406096 (LAO 0784412)
Regular
Apr 27, 2017

JOSE MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ADVENTIST HEALTH

This case involves an award of additional attorney's fees for applicant's counsel in the California Court of Appeal. The court remanded the matter for supplemental fees after the defendant's unsuccessful Petition for Writ of Review. While applicant's attorney sought $11,480.00 in fees, the Board found this excessive and awarded $8,000.00 based on a review of the appellate work and the contentious history of the litigation. The Board also awarded the requested costs of $67.58, totaling $8,067.58 in additional appellate attorney's fees and costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesItemization of Attorney's FeesExcessive Fee RequestReasonable Fee DeterminationCase-by-Case Basis
References
1
Case No. ADJ9508272
Regular
Oct 11, 2017

FERESHTEH ALAEI-NIA vs. MACY'S INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an award of additional attorney's fees and costs to applicant's counsel. The Second District Court of Appeal had previously remanded the case for such an award after denying the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review. The Board reviewed the itemized request, considering factors like time, effort, skill, complexity, and the frivolous nature of the defendant's petition. Ultimately, the Board awarded $8,955.00 in attorney's fees and $120.14 in costs, totaling $9,075.14.

Writ of ReviewSupplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Appellate Attorney's FeesCase-by-case basisFrivolous PetitionIndustrial Psychiatric InjuryVenue ChallengeReasonable Hourly RateItemization of Attorney's Fees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. FRE 192364, FRE 192365, FRE 198592
Regular
Sep 21, 2007

CAROL MCKINLEY vs. RAMALLAH, INC./GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves a request for additional attorney's fees and costs following a successful defense against a defendant's petition for writ of review. The Appeals Board reviewed the itemized hours and requested rate, disallowing time spent on specific tasks deemed clerical or administrative. Ultimately, the Board awarded $\$ 2,100.00$ in attorney's fees and $\$ 49.45$ in costs, recognizing the applicant's attorney's experience and the outcome of the appeal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealRemandLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Certified Workers' Compensation SpecialistHourly RateCosts on Appeal
References
4
Case No. ADJ11299000
Regular
Oct 09, 2019

ORLANDO WATKINS vs. SME STEEL CONTRACTORS INC., THE HARTFORD

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves an award of additional attorney's fees and costs. Following a denial of a Petition for Writ of Review by the Second District Court of Appeal, the matter was remanded for an award of fees. The applicant's counsel and defendant's counsel stipulated to a reasonable fee amount of $4,120.88. The Board found this stipulated amount to be reasonable and issued an award accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardattorney's feescostsPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811stipulated agreementremandappellate attorney's feesHartford Casualty Insurance Company
References
1
Case No. 03 Civ. 0332(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

In Re September 11th Liability Insurance Coverage Cases

This opinion and order addresses two Rule 12(c) motions regarding insurance coverage for the World Trade Center properties following the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sought a declaration that it is an "Additional Insured" under Zurich American Insurance Company's policies, while World Trade Center Properties LLC (WTCP) sought a declaration that Zurich is obligated to cover defense costs. The court, presided over by District Judge Hellerstein, denied both motions. It found ambiguity in the binder regarding the Port Authority's "Additional Insured" status, stating that the issue was premature without further discovery. Furthermore, the court held that New York Insurance Regulation 107 does not require rewriting Zurich's binder and policies to include defense costs, considering the unique circumstances, the sophistication of the insured, and the fact that Zurich explicitly excluded defense costs, which Silverstein (WTCP's affiliate) accepted after failing to secure conventional coverage. The court also affirmed supplemental jurisdiction over the insurance claims due to their close relation to the underlying September 11th liability cases.

Insurance CoverageSeptember 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterRule 12(c) MotionDeclaratory ReliefAdditional Insured StatusDefense CostsInsurance BinderNew York Insurance LawRegulation 107
References
48
Case No. ADJ8076158
Regular
Aug 20, 2014

JEFFREY BARSTOW vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case involves an award of additional attorney's fees and costs to applicant's counsel following a successful defense of a Petition for Writ of Review at the appellate level. The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the Board to determine these fees. The Board found the requested $3,712.50 in attorney's fees, based on 8.25 hours at $450/hour, to be reasonable. Additionally, costs of $46.92 for printing expenses were awarded, totaling $3,759.42.

Labor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewAppellate Attorney's FeesSupplemental AwardCourt of AppealBoard OrderReasonable FeesCostsLaw Offices of Steven M. BarryVan Nuys District Office
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tokyo Electron Arizona, Inc. v. Discreet Industries Corp.

This order addresses the plaintiff Tokyo Electron Arizona's (TAZ) application for reasonable attorney's fees and costs against defendants Discreet Industries and Ovadia Meron (Discreet), pursuant to Federal Rule 37. The court determines the appropriate award by assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended, applying the lodestar method. While acknowledging the high caliber of work, the court reduced Mr. Haug's hourly rate and applied a 10% overall reduction to the billed hours to account for potential overlap. Additionally, the court found TAZ's copying and transcript costs reasonable and partially awarded costs for a computer-generated Power Point presentation. Ultimately, TAZ was awarded $55,751.79 in fees and $5386.19 in costs, totaling $61,137.98.

Attorney's FeesCostsDiscovery SanctionsFederal Rule 37Lodestar MethodHourly RatesReasonable HoursEastern District of New YorkSouthern District of New YorkWork Product Doctrine
References
26
Case No. SDO 0312666
Regular
Jul 09, 2007

FELINO CARIASO vs. SOLAR TURBINES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant's counsel $5,000 in attorney's fees for responding to defendant's petition for writ of review, disallowing a portion of the requested hours and reducing the hourly rate from $275 to $250. The Board found the complexity of the issues and cited authorities to be of "average complexity." Additionally, $486.45 in costs were awarded for reproduction and binding of legal documents, supported by submitted bills.

Labor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Attorney's FeesCostsPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealRemandSupplemental AwardAppellate Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly Rate
References
3
Case No. AHM 0097527
Regular
Jun 04, 2008

WILLIAM DAVID SCOTT vs. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Following a remand from the Court of Appeal for an award of attorney's fees and costs, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant's counsel $2,500 for appellate attorney's fees and $421.68 for costs. The Board found the requested 25 hours excessive for an answer of average complexity, awarding fees based on 10 hours at $250/hour, considering the attorney's experience, the results obtained, and the case's limited complexity. Costs for printing were allowed upon review of provided receipts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesCostsLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly RateCase ComplexityItemization
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,005 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