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. 2017 NY Slip Op 07909 [155 AD3d 1208]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2017

NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. People Care Inc.

Plaintiff, a self-insured trust, commenced a collection action against defendant, a former member, for unpaid assessments related to workers' compensation claims. Defendant counterclaimed and filed a third-party action against Cool Insuring Agency, the trust's administrators, alleging mismanagement. During discovery, a dispute arose over a report commissioned by defendant's counsel from a consultant, which Cool and plaintiff sought to compel. Defendant asserted attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, and material prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Supreme Court partially granted the motions to compel, a decision largely affirmed by the Appellate Division, Third Department, with a modification regarding a specific email exchange found to be protected attorney work product.

Discovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeAttorney Work ProductMaterial Prepared for LitigationSelf-Insurance TrustWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentThird-Party ActionClaims Administration
References
20
Case No. ADJ7508584
Regular
Sep 30, 2014

CALVIN WRIGHT vs. HEALTH NET, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior order regarding temporary total disability (TTD) indemnity payments. The WCAB found the defendant's attorney's petition for reconsideration frivolous and filed in bad faith, noting the attorney attempted to disregard a prior stipulation on average weekly earnings and TTD rate. Consequently, the WCAB issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against the attorney for bad faith actions, delay, and failure to comply with procedural rules. The WCAB will affirm the prior order directing the defendant to pay the TTD difference owed to the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsAttorney FeesStipulationTemporary Total Disability (TTD) IndemnityAverage Weekly EarningsWCJBad FaithFrivolous
References
0
Case No. ADJ7500183
Regular
Oct 07, 2014

RAMON MARTIN vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding it frivolous and filed in bad faith. The Board imposed a $750 sanction against defendant's attorneys, Tricia Pride and Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP. This sanction was for falsely asserting judicial misconduct by the judge in the petition. The attorneys' subsequent response failed to adequately explain or apologize for their conduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionFrivolous PetitionBad-Faith ConductJudicial MisconductCode of Judicial EthicsLabor Code Section 123.6Industrial InjuryLeft Knee Surgery
References
6
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colucci v. New York Times Co.

The defendant, The New York Times, moved for attorneys' fees after successfully defending against the plaintiff's reverse sex discrimination and retaliation claims. The Court found the plaintiff's claims, particularly regarding discrimination (failure to apply, lack of qualifications) and retaliation (no factual basis), to be frivolous and groundless. Consequently, the Court awarded the defendant $1,500 in attorneys' fees, a reduction from the requested $33,175, acknowledging the plaintiff's limited financial capacity (earning $19,000 in 1981 with dependents). Additionally, the defendant sought to impose fees on the plaintiff's attorney for vexatiously multiplying proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. However, the Court denied this motion, finding no evidence of bad faith or egregious conduct from the attorney regarding the interrogatories, proof presentation, or communication with the court.

Reverse Sex DiscriminationRetaliationAttorneys' FeesTitle VIIFrivolous ClaimsVexatious LitigationSanctionsJudicial DiscretionPrevailing PartyFinancial Hardship
References
20
Case No. ADJ2345295
Regular
Aug 26, 2010

JOSEPHINE RICHAU vs. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, INSURANCE CORPORATION OF HANNOVER by MIDLANDS CLAIMS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding supplemental attorney's fees. The defendant sought to overturn an award of $3,120.00 in fees and $297.66 in costs to the applicant's attorney. However, the applicant's attorney confirmed that these fees had already been paid and no further payment was sought. Therefore, the defendant's petition was rendered moot, as the original award, issued under Labor Code section 5801 due to an unreasonable petition for writ of review by the defendant, was satisfied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Attorney's FeesReconsiderationPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code Section 5801Total Permanent DisabilityMethicillin Resistant Staphylococcus AureusIndustrial InjurySpine InjurySpecial Education Teacher
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King v. Allied Vision, Ltd.

This case involves a plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees following a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff Stephen King sought fees due to defendant New Line Cinema's contempt of court for numerous violations of a Final Consent Decree concerning the misattribution of 'The Lawnmower Man' film. The District Court had previously found the defendant in contempt and awarded fees in 1994 and 1995. The Second Circuit affirmed some parts of the 1994 order but vacated others, along with the entire 1995 order, remanding the attorney's fees issue for reconsideration, specifically questioning the willfulness of the noncompliance. Upon review, this court concluded that while the defendant's conduct was negligent and contumacious, it did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard for willfulness required for an award of attorney's fees for civil contempt under Second Circuit law. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees was denied.

Civil ContemptAttorney's FeesWillfulness StandardSecond Circuit RemandConsent Decree ViolationsLanham ActFilm MisattributionThe Lawnmower ManInjunctive ReliefCompensatory Damages
References
27
Case No. ADJ3999556 (STK 0205067)
Regular
Aug 16, 2016

MARTIN ORNELAS vs. BEUTLER CORPORATION, ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of the defendant's writ of review, finding no reasonable basis for the petition and remanding for attorney's fees. Applicant's attorney sought $6,000 based on 15 hours of work, which the defendant contested due to a procedural argument. The Board reviewed the filings and found the requested fee award reasonable. Consequently, the defendant is ordered to pay applicant's attorney $6,000 for services related to the appellate proceedings.

Labor Code Section 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesReasonable BasisRemandApplicant's AttorneyDefendant's AnswerAppellate Court DocketVerified PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ4387448 (SJO 0267422)
Regular
Mar 11, 2014

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

The Court of Appeal ordered a supplemental attorney's fee award for applicant's counsel for successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Board reviewed the attorney's claimed hours and rate, deeming some time entries excessive and clerical tasks non-compensable. Ultimately, the Board awarded $5,480.00 in attorney's fees plus $47.74 in costs, totaling $5,527.74, and clarified this award is in addition to any compensation owed. The Board also rejected the defendant's argument that the third-party credit applied to this supplemental fee award.

Labor Code § 5801Supplemental Attorney's FeePetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of Appeal RemandApplicant's AttorneyReasonable Attorney FeesHourly RateTime and EffortCase ComplexityClerical Tasks
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spence v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.

The plaintiff's racial discrimination lawsuit against the defendant, alleging denial of a transfer from a flight attendant to a ground position, was dismissed. The defendant, as the prevailing party, sought attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 2000e-5(k). The Court found the plaintiff's claims frivolous, groundless, and sustained without factual basis, noting a lack of EEOC filing and a previous Workers' Compensation Law discrimination disallowance. Considering the plaintiff's financial capacity against the defendant's legal costs, the Court awarded the defendant $1,500 in attorneys' fees, aiming to deter meritless suits while avoiding financial ruin for the plaintiff. The decision was made in the Southern District of New York.

Attorneys' FeesRacial DiscriminationEmployment LawCivil Rights ActTitle VIIPrevailing PartyFrivolous LitigationGroundless ClaimsMotion PracticeJudicial Discretion
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 17,192 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