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. ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Regular
Jan 07, 2011

JOYCE GUZMAN vs. MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant, Joyce Guzman. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Appeals Board's decision and the Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for review. Following this, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur awarding costs to the applicant under Labor Code section 5811. The applicant requested $2,686.60 in appellate costs, which the Appeals Board found reasonable and awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMilpitas Unified School DistrictKeenan & AssociatesAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Court of AppealRemittiturPetition for ReviewItemized RequestReasonable Costs
References
3
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. ADJ237189 (RIV 0058701)
Regular
May 22, 2009

DONALD K. SMITH vs. CITY OF SANTA ANA

This case concerns an applicant's attorney's petition for reconsideration regarding appellate costs and attorney's fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed its prior decision, which had affirmed the finding of industrial injury to the heart and prostate but barred the skin cancer claim due to the statute of limitations. The Board ordered the applicant's attorney to reimburse the applicant $390 improperly solicited and received, while ordering the defendant to pay appellate costs of $382.79 upon confirmation of the reimbursement. The Board declined to increase the attorney's fee, finding it already exceeded typical ranges and that the attorney had not demonstrated entitlement to more.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemittiturStatute of LimitationsSkin CancerHeart InjuryProstate CancerPermanent DisabilityAttorney's FeeAppellate Costs
References
2
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 09339 [178 AD3d 1320]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 26, 2019

WSA Group, PE-PC v. DKI Eng'g & Consulting USA PC

WSA Group, PE-PC, an appellant-respondent, sued DKI Engineering & Consulting USA PC, a respondent-appellant, for negligent supervision and breach of contract arising from a subcontract to inspect state bridges. The dispute stemmed from a defendant's employee falsifying an inspection report, leading to costs for the plaintiff that the defendant refused to indemnify. The Supreme Court partially granted defendant's motion to dismiss, deeming the negligent supervision and part of the breach of contract claims time-barred under a three-year professional malpractice statute of limitations. However, it allowed the contractual indemnification claim related to reimbursement to DOT under a six-year breach of contract limitation. The Appellate Division affirmed that the malpractice-related claims were time-barred, accruing upon the completion of the contract in May 2014. Crucially, the Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim for counsel fees and investigation costs, finding that this aspect of the indemnification claim was not subject to the three-year malpractice limitation and fell within the broad scope of the contractual indemnification agreement.

Professional MalpracticeBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsIndemnification ClauseNegligent SupervisionSubcontract AgreementEngineering ServicesAccrual of ActionAppellate ReviewContractual Obligation
References
15
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. 2020 NY Slip Op 02554 [182 AD3d 526]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Xiaodong Lin v. McGhee

This appellate case involves a dispute between Xiaodong Lin (respondent) and David McGhee (appellant) concerning orders related to their child. The defendant father appealed several orders, including those prohibiting communication with the child except as deemed appropriate by the Wellspring Foundation, requiring him to pay 50% of treatment and education costs at Wellspring and Arch Bridge, limiting his parental access, and mandating payment for a supervised visitation social worker. The Appellate Division modified the February 10, 2017 order, deleting the provision requiring the father to pay 50% of the child's treatment and education costs, and remanded for a hearing to determine its warrantability due to a lack of showing of changed financial circumstances. All other orders, including those limiting parental access and requiring payment for supervised visitation, were affirmed. The court found the father's arguments regarding termination of parental rights, lack of evidentiary hearing, and maternal alienation unavailing.

Parental RightsChild CustodyParental AccessFinancial ContributionResidential TreatmentSpecial Education CostsSupervised VisitationAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEvidentiary Hearing
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04590 [162 AD3d 950]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2018

Sullivan v. New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y.

John Sullivan sued New York Athletic Club of City of New York (NYAC) and Talisen Construction Corporation (Talisen) for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence, sustained while carrying a heavy beam down stairs during a bathroom renovation. Talisen and NYAC sought indemnification from Premier Woodcraft, Ltd. (Premier), Sullivan's employer and a subcontractor. The Supreme Court denied various summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting Premier's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and contractual indemnification claims (except for defense costs). The court also granted Talisen's cross-motion for defense costs against Premier, and affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Sullivan on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, finding his injury was not caused by an elevation-related hazard, and for both parties regarding breach of insurance agreements due to unresolved factual issues.

Labor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related HazardContractual IndemnificationBreach of Agreement to Procure InsuranceSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1987

SOC'Y OF NY HOSP v. Axelrod

The Court of Appeals of New York reviewed a challenge by Society of the New York Hospital and New York Eye & Ear Infirmary against the Commissioner of Health, David Axelrod, concerning the denial of Supplemental Hospital Index Factor (SHIF) waivers. These waivers would allow hospitals to be reimbursed for actual, rather than projected, labor cost increases. The Commissioner denied the applications based on an "affordability" test, deeming the hospitals sufficiently affluent. The Court found this "affordability" test to be arbitrary and capricious, exceeding the statutory mandate under Public Health Law § 2807 (3), which focused on costs related to efficient service production. The decision modified the Appellate Division's order, remitting the case to the Commissioner for reconsideration without the "affordability" factor, rather than directing an immediate award of benefits.

Hospital reimbursementLabor cost waiversAdministrative discretionPublic Health LawArbitrary and capriciousStatutory interpretationRate-settingAgency overreachHealthcare financeJudicial review of administrative action
References
6
Case No. ADJ 3782237
Regular
Sep 04, 2008

PAUL GARCIA vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT, INC.

The court awarded applicant's counsel $114.29 in appellate costs, rejecting defendant's objection based on a late-filed answer. The decision is based on California Rules of Court, rule 26(c) and Johnson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDLabor Code § 5811Petition for Writ of ReviewAppellate CostsApplicant's CounselDefendant's ObjectionCalifornia Rules of Courtrule 26(c)reproduction of briefsJohnson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 11,111 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