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
Dec 03, 1982

Louladakis v. Steinmetz

Plaintiff Anastasios Louladakis appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, regarding the apportionment of legal fees and expenses with Maryland Casualty Company. The original order denied his motion for apportionment and held that Maryland Casualty Company was entitled to full repayment of a workers’ compensation lien amounting to $136,406.23. The appellate court modified the order by changing the repayment amount to $135,483.83, in accordance with the parties' stipulation, and affirmed the order as modified. The court agreed that the plaintiff waived his rights to any apportionment of attorney fees.

personal injuriesworkers' compensation lienlegal feesapportionmentappealKings Countywaiver of rightsstipulationdamagesorder modification
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castleberry v. Hudson Valley Asphalt Corp.

This case concerns an application by a plaintiff, injured in 1973, for the apportionment of attorney's fees incurred in a third-party action. The plaintiff, who receives weekly workers' compensation benefits from Utica Mutual Insurance Co., secured a $75,000 settlement after an initial judgment was set aside on appeal. The central issue was whether the compensation carrier, Utica Mutual, should bear the full amount of the attorney's fees for the $75,000 settlement, thereby vacating its $20,402 lien. The court, exercising its discretion under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29, determined that since the entire settlement benefited the carrier by reducing its future obligations, the carrier should be responsible for all attorney's fees, and its lien was consequently vacated.

Attorney's Fees ApportionmentLien VacationThird-Party SettlementInsurance Carrier LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 29Subrogation RightsEquitable ApportionmentJudicial DiscretionStatutory BenefitWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wood v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Anthony N. Wood, severely injured while employed by the Town of Stillwater Highway Department, settled a third-party action against Firestone Tire and Rubber Company for $1.1 million. The workers' compensation carrier, Saratoga County Self-Insured Plan, had a lien of over $63,000 for compensation and medical payments. Wood moved to apportion legal fees and expenses against the carrier's lien, arguing that the carrier's equitable share should consider the present value of estimated future benefits it would no longer have to pay, citing *Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund*. The Saratoga County Self-Insured Plan opposed, disputing the calculation of future benefits and arguing for consideration of potential future death benefits. The court, guided by *Kelly*, found the respondent's arguments lacked merit and applied a formula that included the lien amount plus the discounted value of future payments saved by the carrier. The court determined an equitable apportionment of $114,112.67, concluding that the offset exceeded the carrier's lien due to the substantial benefits the carrier received from the extinguishment of future obligations.

ApportionmentLegal FeesThird-Party ActionLien OffsetFuture Benefits CalculationEquitable ApportionmentSettlement ProceedsEconomist Expert WitnessPermanent DisabilityCarrier Liability
References
10
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. ADJ8621726
Regular
Feb 27, 2020

LEONARD DE LA ROSA vs. KLOECKNER USA HOLDINGS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Fourth District Court of Appeal remanded this case for the Appeals Board to award supplemental attorney fees to the applicant's attorneys for services rendered in opposing the defendant's petition for writ of review. The applicant's attorneys requested over $40,000.00 based on their time and hourly rates, citing the complexity of the case, specifically concerning permanent disability apportionment. After reviewing the submissions and considering the factors for reasonable appellate fees, the Board awarded $32,500.00, finding some billed time appeared clerical or not directly related to the appellate answer. This award is in addition to any compensation payable to the applicant.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feesPetition for Writ of ReviewFourth District Court of AppealAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney feesApplicant's attorneysTime itemizationsSworn declarations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1997

Schomber v. Schomber

This case concerns a postjudgment application for a change of custody which was ultimately withdrawn without prejudice. The remaining issues for the court were the award and apportionment of counsel and expert fees. The court reviewed the affidavits of legal services and net worth statements from both the plaintiff and defendant, noting the defendant's superior earning capacity. It also addressed the fees for the Law Guardian and a forensic expert, whose qualifications were challenged by the plaintiff. The court affirmed the expert's role and fees, stating that licensure is not a prerequisite for court-appointed experts in this context. Ultimately, the court ordered the apportionment of legal, Law Guardian, and forensic expert fees between the parties, with the defendant responsible for 80% and the plaintiff for 20% of the expert and Law Guardian fees, based on their respective financial circumstances.

custody disputechild supportlegal feesexpert witness feesLaw Guardian feespostjudgment applicationmatrimonial lawfee apportionmentfinancial disclosureSuffolk Academy of Law
References
4
Case No. ADJ10825156
Regular
Jul 28, 2025

RAMON MUNOZ vs. THE EDWARD THOMAS COMPANY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Reconsideration to address a clarification regarding attorney's fees. The Board affirmed the WCJ's Findings and Award, which found applicant sustained injury to the right knee and hypertension, denied apportionment for hypertension, and disallowed credit for temporary disability overpayment. The Board specifically found that the defendant failed to meet its burden for hypertension apportionment. The only amendment made was to explicitly state that attorney's fees should be held in trust pending the filing of a fee disclosure statement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardRight Knee InjuryHypertensionApportionmentTemporary Disability OverpaymentAttorney FeesFee Disclosure StatementPanel Qualified Medical Examiner
References
7
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 3,833 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