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. OAK 0255953
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

CLINTON HENDRIX vs. GALGON INDUSTRIES, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

This case clarifies that California Labor Code sections 4607 and 5814.5 do not authorize the use of a lodestar multiplier for attorney's fees awarded to enforce medical treatment awards. The Appeals Board rescinded its previous directive to defer consideration of section 4607 fees, affirming that the enforcement of medical treatment awards aligns with social policy and the public interest. The case is returned to the trial level for recalculation of fees under these statutes, without a lodestar multiplier, but acknowledging a prior final award under section 4607.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClinton HendrixGalgon IndustriesCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationSuperior National InsuranceliquidationBroadsPIREreconsiderationLabor Code sections 4607 and 5814.5attorney's fees
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fink v. City of New York

Dennis H. Fink, a retired fire marshal, successfully sued the City of New York and the Fire Department under USERRA and the ADA for discrimination and retaliation. After prevailing on all claims, Fink accepted a remittitur on emotional damages. Subsequently, Fink moved for attorneys' fees. The court, presided over by District Judge Trager, calculated the "lodestar" fee by adjusting counsel's proposed hourly rates and reducing certain billed hours deemed excessive, particularly for routine tasks and the fee application itself. The court denied Fink's request for a 75% multiplier, referencing Supreme Court decisions that disallow such enhancements based on litigation risk or case complexity in fee-shifting statutes. Additionally, several claimed expenses, including Westlaw research and office supplies, were disallowed. Ultimately, Fink was awarded $145,769.47 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

USERRAADAAttorneys' FeesLodestar MethodFee-Shifting StatutesContingency FeesRemittiturEmployment DiscriminationMilitary Service DiscriminationDisability Discrimination
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 1972

Claim of Palmer v. Candies

This case concerns an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision, filed May 12, 1972, and amended October 11, 1972. The central issue was the use of the appropriate multiplier for compensation benefits under subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Law, specifically challenging the Board's use of a 245 multiplier under subdivision 3. The employer's factory closed three months annually, leading the claimant to work approximately 167 days in the preceding year. The Board concluded that neither subdivision 1 nor 2 applied, prompting the resort to subdivision 3. The appellants contended that subdivision 3's 200-day multiplier was a maximum, a contention rejected by the court, which clarified that 200 is a minimum. The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawWage CalculationMultiplierSection 14Subdivision 3Appellate ReviewCompensation BenefitsSeasonal EmploymentDaily MultiplierLegal Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Whittaker v. Central Square Central School District

The claimant appealed the Workers’ Compensation Board's calculation of his average weekly wage following a work-related injury to his right elbow and hand. The Board used a 200 multiplier under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3), which the claimant contended did not accurately reflect his annual salary as a school bus driver working 10 months a year. The court found that applying a 200 multiplier, although a minimum, was erroneous as it did not rationally correspond to the claimant's actual work days and resulted in an average weekly wage that was not fair or reasonable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case back to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Average Weekly WageWorkers' Compensation Law200 MultiplierAnnual Salary CalculationSchool Bus DriverWork-Related InjuryJudicial ReviewError in CalculationRemittal
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00369
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2018

Matter of Bain v. New Caps, LLC

Claimant David Bain suffered a work-related neck and back injury. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which established claimant's average weekly wage using the 200 multiplier set forth in Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3). The Board found that the claimant had worked for the employer for only 16 days in the preceding 52-week period and that there was an absence of proof that the claimant was not fully available for employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the use of the 200 multiplier was supported by substantial evidence given the lack of evidence that the claimant voluntarily limited his availability for work.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationWorkers' Compensation Law § 14200 Multiplier MethodPart-time EmploymentClaimant AvailabilityWork-Related InjuryAppellate Division ReviewSubstantial EvidenceStatutory InterpretationEarnings Calculation
References
9
Case No. ADJ506350 (FRE 0247714) ADJ1140539 (FRE 0247715)
Regular
Jun 12, 2012

MARIA MARES vs. VOLTAGE MULTIPLIER, INC., ICW GROUP/INSURANCE CO. OF THE WEST

This case involves reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board award for Maria Mares. Both applicant and defendant sought reconsideration regarding temporary total disability duration, permanent disability rating, and the permanent and stationary date. The WCJ acknowledged errors in the original Findings and Award, specifically concerning attorneys' fees and factual inaccuracies. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactOrder and AwardTemporarily Totally DisabledTemporarily Partially DisabledPermanent DisabilityCumulative InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesCarpal Tunnel Syndrome
References
1
Case No. ADJ4024660 (LAO 0887729)
Regular
Feb 03, 2017

ALFREDO COLLAZO vs. MECA NAG CORPORATION, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior order, and returned the case to the trial level for a new decision. The WCJ erred in determining the lien claimant's entitlement to payment solely on a multiplier of Medicare rates, rather than a reasonable cost basis. The Board clarified that while the facility's charges are not subject to the Official Medical Fee Schedule, their entitlement must be based on their actual costs plus a reasonable profit. Therefore, further proceedings are required to properly assess the reasonable cost basis for the services rendered.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and OrderLien ClaimantReasonable Cost BasisMedicare ReimbursementOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleLong Term Care HospitalKunz StudyTapia
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 1990

Continental Building Co. v. Town of North Salem

This case concerns an amended order regarding the award of attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988. The court re-affirmed its previous finding that the plaintiff was a 'prevailing party' and that no 'special circumstances' existed to deny the award, rejecting arguments regarding defendants' good faith, plaintiff's financial ability, or third-party contributions. The court then determined the reasonableness of the fees, finding the hours expended and the hourly rate to be appropriate. Despite the 'lodestar fee' calculation, the court, exercising its discretion, reduced the final award to prevent overpricing litigation, ultimately granting $318,977.78 in attorney's fees and $73,022.22 in disbursements and expenses.

Civil RightsAttorney's FeesPrevailing PartySpecial CircumstancesLodestar MethodDisbursementsExpert Witness FeesSection 1983Section 1988Exclusionary Zoning
References
32
Case No. 00 Civ. 8166
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. Eversley

Plaintiff Beatrice Morris was sexually assaulted by corrections officer Gilbert Eversley in April 1999 while she was an inmate. She filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Eversley. After two trials, Morris was awarded $1,000 in compensatory and $15,000 in punitive damages. Morris moved for attorneys' fees and costs, seeking $295,818.00 in fees and $58,228.23 in costs. Eversley argued the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) capped fees, but the court held that the PLRA cap did not apply to this case. Applying the lodestar method, the court awarded Morris $154,900 in fees and $25,000 in costs, for a total of $179,900.

Prison Litigation Reform ActAttorneys' FeesLodestar MethodCivil RightsSexual AssaultCorrections Officer MisconductEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentDamages AwardPro Bono Representation
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danna v. New York Telephone Co.

In this memorandum opinion, the court addresses Plaintiff Fran Danna's application for backpay, equitable relief in the form of reinstatement, and prejudgment interest. A previous ruling dated November 17, 1990, found defendant New York Telephone liable for sex discrimination and sexual harassment in its demotion of Danna. The court awarded Danna $58,499.00 in backpay and $18,472.00 in prejudgment interest, for a total of $76,971.00, and ordered her reinstatement as a Service Technician. Damages were calculated based on the average salary of all Service Technicians, including those in Repair and Installation, considering Danna's history of seeking overtime. However, the court denied Danna's request for an additional 'historical multiplier' to further adjust her damages.

Sex DiscriminationSexual HarassmentTitle VIIBackpay AwardReinstatementPrejudgment InterestDamages CalculationOvertime CompensationService TechnicianHostile Work Environment
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 23 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