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. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. 13-10-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. v. DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ AND DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ, P.C.

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. appealed the denial of its motion to transfer venue from Hidalgo County to Bexar County. This appeal stemmed from Counsel Financial's intervention in a personal injury lawsuit, seeking to claim attorney's fees owed to David McQuade Leibowitz from a settlement. Leibowitz, in turn, intervened defensively, asserting claims against Counsel Financial and seeking injunctions. The appellate court examined whether an interlocutory appeal of the venue ruling was permissible under section 15.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies to multiple plaintiffs. The court concluded that Leibowitz was an intervening defendant, not a plaintiff, therefore section 15.003 did not apply, and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

VenueInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to TransferTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeInterventionPlaintiff StatusDefendant StatusForeign Judgment EnforcementAppellate Court Dismissal
References
19
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. ADJ1620559 (ANA 0373462)
Regular
Apr 26, 2011

Wayne Johnson vs. Tennant Company, Sentry Claims Service

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is ordering applicant's counsel, defense counsel, and the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) to provide sworn declarations regarding an alleged ex parte communication. This communication apparently led the WCJ to vacate a prior submission order, citing the applicant's upcoming surgery and a utilization review denial resolution. The defendant seeks removal, claiming the WCJ improperly obtained this information. The WCAB is also ordering all future correspondence be directed to the Commissioners.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionDecision after ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjurySpineRight Lower ExtremityPsycheTemporary DisabilityPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ7114025
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

KATHLEEN KENNEDY vs. COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL, INTERCARE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a case where defense counsel filed a petition exceeding the 31-page limit. Although the Board initially considered sanctions, it ultimately decided against imposing them. However, the Board strongly admonished defense counsel to adhere to page limit regulations in future filings. Consequently, no sanctions were imposed on the defendant or their counsel for the oversized petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationCalifornia Code of RegulationsTitle 8Section 10845(a)Page LimitsAdmonishmentDefendant Counsel
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fields v. State

This Supreme Court opinion clarifies the standard of appellate review for post-conviction claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in Tennessee. Appellant Jehiel Fields sought post-conviction relief after being convicted of first-degree murder, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for not pursuing diminished capacity or self-defense. The trial court and Court of Criminal Appeals denied his petition, finding counsel's decisions were strategic and no prejudice was shown. The Supreme Court reaffirms that such claims involve mixed questions of law and fact subject to de novo review, but with a presumption of correctness for the trial court's factual findings. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the lower court's judgment and dismissed Fields' petition for post-conviction relief.

Post-conviction reliefIneffective assistance of counselAppellate review standardDe novo reviewMixed question of law and factFactual findingsLegal conclusionsPresumption of correctnessCriminal procedureTrial strategy
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Sanchez

The defendant, whose name is not provided, is charged with one count of forcible touching and one count of harassment in the second degree. The defense moved to dismiss the charges in the interest of justice, citing severe communication difficulties stemming from the defendant's profound deafness and lack of formal sign language proficiency, which allegedly impaired his ability to assist in his defense. Judge John H. Wilson reviewed the motion, the People's response, and reports from defense counsel. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that despite the defendant's sympathetic circumstances, the serious nature of the alleged sexual assault and the defendant's history of resisting communication training did not warrant dismissal. However, recognizing the significant barriers to communication and ensuring due process, the court, on its own motion, ordered a psychiatric examination of the defendant to assess his competency to understand the proceedings and aid his counsel, with an assessment scheduled for June 23, 2014.

Forcible TouchingHarassmentMotion to DismissInterest of JusticeDefendant's CompetencyPsychiatric EvaluationDue ProcessDeaf DefendantCommunication BarrierCriminal Procedure Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McLaughlin

The People moved to disqualify the Legal Aid Society from representing the defendant, Mr. McLaughlin, on the grounds that the Society had previously represented a key prosecution witness, Mr. Luis Elicier. The defense argued against the motion, citing timeliness and claiming no actual conflict of interest. The court, presided over by Justice Carol Berkman, found an actual conflict due to the Society's prior representation of Elicier and their stated intent to implicate him in the current crimes. Despite the defendant's desire to retain his chosen counsel and the Society's proposed 'Chinese Wall' defense, the court ruled that the conflict of interest was undeniable and ordered the disqualification of the Legal Aid Society. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system and protecting the former client's confidences, overriding the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice in this instance.

Attorney disqualificationConflict of interest (legal)Sixth Amendment right to counselAttorney-client privilegeEthical violationsCriminal defenseProsecution witnessFormer client representationJudicial ethicsNew York courts
References
13
Case No. Docket No. 2021-06-1121, State File No. 26092-2021
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2023

Nelson, Anvil v. QVS, Inc.

In this appeal, the employer contends the trial court erred when it disqualified counsel from joint representation of the employer and its insurer and ordered the insurer to retain independent counsel to represent the employer. The alleged injured worker, who is also the owner and president of the employer, filed a motion seeking to disqualify defense counsel altogether or, in the alternative, to compel the retention of independent counsel for the employer, asserting there is a concurrent conflict of interest. The court concluded a conflict existed, disqualified counsel from representing the employer, and ordered the insurer to hire independent counsel to represent the employer. The employer has appealed. Having reviewed the record on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order disqualifying counsel from representing the employer and remand the case.

Conflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationWorkers' CompensationCorporate RepresentationDual RepresentationEthical ObligationsRules of Professional ConductInsurerEmployerEmployee
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 9,427 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