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

Maxwell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This is an appeal concerning the award of counsel fees in a no-fault automobile accident case. The plaintiff appealed the Trial Term's decision denying an excess counsel fee award, which was initially granted at the statutory maximum. Plaintiff argued that the case involved novel issues related to an exclusion clause and the basis for disclaimer under No-Fault Law, warranting higher fees. The appellate court affirmed the Trial Term's decision, finding that the issues, while skillfully handled, were not sufficiently novel or unique to justify an excess fee under 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (8) (vii), as they relied on established contract law and statutory construction. The court also rejected the plaintiff's constitutional challenge regarding the impairment of contracts, clarifying that the fee limitation only applies to the insurer, not the client, and dismissed an ex parte communication claim as outside the record.

No-Fault BenefitsCounsel FeesExcess Fee AwardStatutory InterpretationContract Law PrinciplesConstitutional ChallengeImpairment ClauseAppellate DivisionInsurance RegulationsLegal Practice
References
8
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. ADJ2340102 (LAO 0751270) ADJ4406096 (LAO 0784412)
Regular
Apr 27, 2017

JOSE MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, ADVENTIST HEALTH

This case involves an award of additional attorney's fees for applicant's counsel in the California Court of Appeal. The court remanded the matter for supplemental fees after the defendant's unsuccessful Petition for Writ of Review. While applicant's attorney sought $11,480.00 in fees, the Board found this excessive and awarded $8,000.00 based on a review of the appellate work and the contentious history of the litigation. The Board also awarded the requested costs of $67.58, totaling $8,067.58 in additional appellate attorney's fees and costs.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesItemization of Attorney's FeesExcessive Fee RequestReasonable Fee DeterminationCase-by-Case Basis
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1996

Prior v. County of Saratoga

Plaintiff commenced an action alleging excessive force during his arrest by Shawn Nolan and Keith Clinton of the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department, claiming battery and Federal civil rights violations under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. A jury found Nolan used excessive force but did not intentionally violate plaintiff's rights, awarding $5,000 for pain and suffering and $429.66 for medical expenses. Plaintiff then moved for counsel fees as a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1988, and Supreme Court awarded $7,500. Both parties appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the plaintiff was a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1988 because his Federal constitutional claims met the two-pronged Gibbs test, and the reduction of the requested counsel fee was an appropriate exercise of discretion given the limited success on the nonconstitutional issue.

Excessive ForceCivil Rights4th Amendment5th Amendment14th AmendmentBatteryCounsel FeesPrevailing PartyFederal ClaimsState Claims
References
9
Case No. Motions Nos. 5 and 7
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

Rachlin v. Lewis

This case consolidates two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging the Insurance Department's regulations on attorneys' fees in no-fault automobile insurance disputes and the constitutionality of certain sections of the Insurance Law. The petitioners sought to rescind 11 NYCRR 65.16 and declare Insurance Law section 671 et seq. unconstitutional. The court ruled that sections 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (ix), which prohibited attorneys from charging clients fees in excess of insurer-paid fees, and 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (vii), concerning the regulation of disbursements, were invalid as they exceeded the scope of the enabling legislation. However, the court upheld the general fee schedule, finding a rational basis for its establishment by the Insurance Department.

Attorney's FeesNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawRegulatory ChallengeCPLR Article 78Administrative LawConstitutional LawDisbursementsArbitrationAutomobile Insurance
References
6
Case No. MON 0331606
Regular
Aug 08, 2007

DEAN HARVEY vs. PES PAYROLL

This case involves a request for additional attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code § 5801 following a successful appeal by the applicant. The Appeals Board awarded applicant's attorney $3,500 in fees and $96.98 in costs, finding the requested hours for drafting the response excessive and disallowing paralegal fees. The Board determined the case was of average complexity and set the hourly rate at $250 for a certified specialist.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealAppeals BoardSupplemental AwardReasonable FeesHourly RateCertified SpecialistAppellate Complexity
References
3
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. AHM 0097527
Regular
Jun 04, 2008

WILLIAM DAVID SCOTT vs. DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Following a remand from the Court of Appeal for an award of attorney's fees and costs, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant's counsel $2,500 for appellate attorney's fees and $421.68 for costs. The Board found the requested 25 hours excessive for an answer of average complexity, awarding fees based on 10 hours at $250/hour, considering the attorney's experience, the results obtained, and the case's limited complexity. Costs for printing were allowed upon review of provided receipts.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesCostsLabor Code § 5801Labor Code § 5811Appellate Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly RateCase ComplexityItemization
References
4
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. 96 Civ. 0805(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Broome v. Biondi

This case addresses motions for attorneys' fees and expenses filed by the prevailing plaintiffs, Gregory and Shannon Broome, and third-party defendant, Simone Demou, following a successful civil rights lawsuit. The original suit alleged racial discrimination in a sublet application against Beekman Hill House Apartment Corporation and its board members. The court evaluated the reasonableness of the claimed hours and hourly rates for the legal teams, considering arguments regarding unsuccessful claims, state law claims, vague billing entries, excessive and duplicative work, and non-compensable tasks. The court ultimately granted the motions in part, awarding specific amounts for attorneys' fees and disbursements to both the plaintiffs and the third-party defendant.

Attorneys' FeesCivil RightsHousing DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationFee ShiftingLodestar MethodBilling DisputesPrevailing PartyDamages AwardThird-Party Litigation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 3,082 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