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

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. 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

In re Grace PP.

This case involves an appeal from a County Court order in Saratoga County. The order directed respondent, as attorney-in-fact for Grace PP. (an alleged incapacitated person, AIP), to pay counsel fees to the AIP's assigned counsel and to the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner, a licensed social worker, initiated a Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding to appoint a guardian for Grace PP., who suffered from dementia and required nursing home placement. County Court appointed a temporary guardian and ordered the respondent to pay counsel fees. The respondent appealed, arguing the AIP was indigent due to Medicaid benefits. The appellate court found no error or abuse of discretion in the County Court's award of counsel fees and affirmed the order, noting the record lacked evidence of the AIP's indigence despite her Medicaid recipient status.

Counsel FeesIndigenceMedicaid BenefitsAttorney-in-factGuardian AppointmentIncapacitated PersonDementiaNursing Home PlacementAppellate ReviewSaratoga County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Fernandez v. Royal Coach Lines, Inc.

Claimant's counsel appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that reduced their previously awarded counsel fees from $2,800 to $450. The Board found the counsel's fee application, form OC-400.1, deficient as it failed to provide specific dates and time spent for each service, as mandated by 12 NYCRR 300.17 (d) and Board bulletin Subject Number 046-548. Additionally, counsel failed to disclose a prior $900 fee award. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in reducing the fees due to the non-compliant application. The court also clarified that prior holdings suggesting no requirement for time spent on services, such as in *Matter of Pavone*, should no longer be followed.

Counsel Fee ReductionWorkers' Compensation Board AppealFee Application Deficiencies12 NYCRR 300.17Appellate DivisionAdministrative DiscretionPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityPrior Fee DisclosureMatter of Pavone Overruled
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banton v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after the claimant was injured. Counsel sought a change of venue, citing a purported "Board Rule 10.01 (1) (c)" which the Workers’ Compensation Board found to be non-existent. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied the request and assessed penalties against counsel under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (i) and (ii). On administrative appeal, the Board rescinded the penalty under § 114-a (3) (i) but increased the penalty under § 114-a (3) (ii) due to the appeal lacking reasonable basis. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that counsel had been previously warned about citing the inaccurate "Board Rule" and that clarification on venue application rules was available before the administrative appeal was filed.

Attorney MisconductVenue ChangeMonetary PenaltyWorkers' Compensation BoardAdministrative AppealSubstantial EvidenceLegal TreatiseProcedural MotionUnreasonable GroundsAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Shea v. Icelandair

A WCLJ found a claimant had a mild permanent partial disability but voluntarily retired, authorizing medical treatment without lost wage awards. The carrier disputed medical and transportation expenses, leading to a Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 agreement of $17,500 for claimant's expenses, including a $2,200 counsel fee. The WCLJ and Workers’ Compensation Board denied the counsel fee, arguing medical/travel awards are not 'compensation' subject to a lien. The appellate court reversed, broadly interpreting 'compensation' to include medical expenses to ensure representation availability for injured employees. The court remitted the case for the Board to exercise its discretion in reviewing the requested counsel fee.

Workers' CompensationCounsel FeesMedical ExpensesStatutory InterpretationLienPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary RetirementBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewNew York Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falbaum v. Pomerantz

Five former managerial employees of Leslie Fay sued four current employees and the company's outside counsel for age discrimination under federal (ADEA), New York State (NYHRL), Pennsylvania (PHRA), and New York City (NYCCRL) laws. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing they are not subject to personal liability under ADEA, NYHRL, and PHRA, and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under PHRA and NYCCRL. The court had previously dismissed legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Leslie Fay's general counsel and outside counsel. The court granted the motion to dismiss claims under ADEA, NYHRL, and PHRA, finding that these statutes generally do not impose personal liability on individual employees, but rather focus on employer liability. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims under the NYCCRL because its plain language explicitly allows for liability against "an employer or an employee or agent thereof", and plaintiffs demonstrated compliance with administrative requirements. Therefore, the case proceeds only on the New York City Civil Rights Law claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawPersonal LiabilityEmployer LiabilityADEANYHRLPHRANYCCRLRespondeat SuperiorMotion to Dismiss
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lake v. M.P.C. Trucking, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the law firm Lewis & Stanzione after the Supreme Court denied their motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs, including Charles Lake. Plaintiffs initially sought damages for injuries but later expressed dissatisfaction with their attorney, Ralph Lewis, questioning his competence, veracity, and loyalty, despite also requesting his continued representation due to inability to find new counsel. Lewis sought to withdraw due to limited potential recovery and irreconcilable differences, exacerbated by plaintiffs rejecting settlement offers and insisting on trial against his advice. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting the law firm's motion for renewal and permitting them to withdraw as counsel, citing the deteriorated attorney-client relationship.

Attorney-Client RelationshipWithdrawal of CounselProfessional StandardsIrreconcilable DifferencesMotion to RenewAppellate ReviewGreene CountyWorkers' Compensation ClaimDamages LitigationSettlement Offers
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Marshall v. Savannah Sausage Corp.

This appeal concerns a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board disallowing a claimant's application for death benefits as untimely and denying counsel fees. James Marshall, a marketing consultant, sustained serious injuries in a 1977 motor vehicle accident and later died in 1981. His widow, the claimant, filed a death claim in 1984, which was deemed untimely by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently affirmed by the Board, as it was not filed within two years of Marshall's death. Additionally, the Board denied counsel fees, ruling that compensation benefits would not exceed the third-party settlement Marshall received, thus rendering further legal efforts futile. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the untimely filing of the death claim and concurring that no counsel fees lien was applicable.

Death BenefitsTimeliness of ClaimCounsel FeesThird-Party SettlementWorkers' Compensation LawInsurance CarrierDisability ClaimAppealLienWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,602 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