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. ADJ6550105 ADJ6777358 ADJ6777361 ADJ6976802
Regular
Oct 03, 2014

ESTHER GARCIA vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an earlier order allowing attorney fees. The Board found that Labor Code section 5710(b) only authorizes fees for depositions of the injured employee or their dependents, not for depositions of Qualified Medical Evaluators (QMEs). Therefore, applicant's counsel was not entitled to fees for attending the QME's deposition. The Board denied the petition for attorney's fees.

Labor Code $\S 5710$Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Attorney's FeesDepositionInjured EmployeeDependent BenefitsWCJContingency Fee
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baird v. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

Plaintiffs Rachel M. Baird and Bonnie Porter sued their former employer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, alleging gender discrimination for being placed on a 'non-partnership track' while men were on a 'partnership track.' They initially sought $1.25 million but accepted Rule 68 offers of judgment for $37,500 each, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The court found them 'prevailing parties' but significantly reduced their requested attorneys' fees of $191,048.33 to $54,723.93, and costs to $7,506.23. This reduction was due to their limited success and weak evidence supporting their discrimination and constructive discharge claims. The court noted inconsistencies in Baird's deposition and Porter's personal reasons for leaving the firm, suggesting they realized their unlikelihood of prevailing.

gender discriminationequal pay actTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Lawattorneys' feesRule 68 offer of judgmentprevailing partylodestar calculationlimited successfee reduction
References
38
Case No. ADJ8011399 ADJ8967612 ADJ8967613
Regular
Feb 19, 2014

ENRIQUE DOMINGUEZ vs. WHOLE FOODS MARKETS, Permissibly SelfInsured

This case involves a dispute over attorney's fees for applicant's attorney arising from deposition conduct. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision awarding attorney's fees. The Board found that while the applicant's attorney was entitled to fees under Labor Code section 5710(b)(4), the conduct of both attorneys during a deposition was unprofessional. The WCAB ultimately affirmed the award of attorney's fees but also addressed the attorneys' unprofessional conduct.

Deposition attorney's feesLabor Code section 5710(b)(4)Unprofessional conductCompromise and releaseIndustrial injuryTeam memberWCJ decisionPetition for removalMedical record developmentAgreed medical evaluator (AME)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. VNO 510473
Regular
Oct 15, 2007

TERRY GREEN vs. PENN CONSTRUCTION, PETE ESKIS, NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLIED GROUP, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded an order awarding applicant's attorney fees for attending a co-defendant's deposition. The Board found that Labor Code section 5710 only authorizes attorney fees for the applicant's deposition, not for attending a co-defendant's. Therefore, the WCJ exceeded their jurisdiction in awarding fees under this section.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5710Attorney's FeesDepositionReconsiderationWCJPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessCo-defendantInjured Employee
References
0
Case No. ADJ3968337 (LAO 0844136) ADJ4336885 (LAO 0805868) ADJ672008 (LAO 0805870)
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

ARMIDA BELTRAN vs. MCDONALD'S, HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by McDonald's and Hazelrigg Risk Management Services regarding deposition attorney fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is dismissing the petition because the petitioner has withdrawn it. This withdrawal is consistent with a prior WCJ order rescinding the attorney fee orders, allowing for further discovery on deposition attorney fee payments. Consequently, the petition for reconsideration is dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJrescindeddeposition attorney fee ordersCIGAOrder of Rescissioncrossed in the mailwithdrawn petitionfurther discoveryprior payment
References
0
Case No. ADJ7686760 ADJ7686740 ADJ7686769
Regular
Jan 31, 2012

TAL LAGACHE vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/ FIRE PROTECTION #390; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

This case involves a dispute over a deposition attorney fee awarded to applicant's counsel at $400 per hour. Defendant objected, claiming a denial of due process and seeking to present evidence of reasonable rates. While defendant violated a rule by attaching exhibits to its petition for reconsideration, the Board excused this violation due to counsel's explanation and regret. The Board rescinded the fee award and returned the matter to the trial level for a hearing to consider defendant's evidence and determine a reasonable deposition fee.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionOffer of ProofDeposition FeeLabor Code Section 5710WCJDue ProcessIndustrial InjuriesFirefighter
References
1
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. 2014-1947 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2017

Acupuncture Now, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by Acupuncture Now, P.C., as assignee, against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. from an order of the Civil Court. The order granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment to dismiss certain causes of action and to compel plaintiff's deposition. Acupuncture Now, P.C. contested State Farm's fee reductions for acupuncture services, which were based on the workers' compensation fee schedule for chiropractors. The Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding that insurers may use this fee schedule for licensed acupuncturists. Furthermore, the court found the order compelling plaintiff's deposition proper, as State Farm was defending the remaining cause of action on grounds of lack of medical necessity.

No-fault benefitsAcupuncture servicesFee scheduleWorkers' compensationSummary judgmentDepositionMedical necessityInsurance disputeAppellate TermChiropractic services
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,201 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