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. No. 13-7019
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (In re Lopez)

This case is a Memorandum Opinion concerning Plaintiff Marcos F. Lopez's application for compensation and reimbursement of expenses for attorney's fees incurred during a motion for sanctions against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA). The plaintiff's counsel, Kellett & Bartholow PLLC, sought $176,967.50 in fees and $2,023.41 in expenses, but PRA opposed the amount. The court determined the reasonableness of attorney's fees using the lodestar method, which involved calculating prevailing hourly rates and reasonable hours, and considering Johnson factors. The court allowed fees for defending PRA's motion for leave to appeal but disallowed fees for prosecuting the fee application itself, for issues on which the plaintiff did not prevail, for vague time entries, and for certain interoffice communications. Ultimately, the court granted in part and denied in part the application, awarding Applicant $117,760.60 in fees and $2,194.64 in expenses, totaling $119,952.24.

Attorney's FeesSanctionsDiscovery ViolationsLodestar MethodBankruptcy LawConsumer LawBilling JudgmentHourly RatesExpenses ReimbursementInterlocutory Appeal
References
38
Case No. ADJ7112948
Regular
Mar 30, 2017

LYLE BYNUM vs. VALLEJO TRANSIT, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award. The Board issued a Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions against the defendant's attorney and insurance company for alleged bad faith actions. These actions included filing a petition for reconsideration with inaccurate and unsupported references to evidence, misrepresenting medical opinions, and asserting meritless contentions. The WCAB is considering sanctions of up to $2,000 and reasonable expenses due to these alleged violations of labor code and board rules.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10561Findings and AwardWCJBus DriverBack InjuryLeft Lower Extremity Injury
References
0
Case No. 126300 R.D.
Regular Panel Decision

Bazner v. American States Insurance Co.

Walter Bazner, an insulator diagnosed with asbestosis, previously received workers' compensation benefits from L.D. Powell & Company and its insurer, American States Insurance Company, for permanent total disability and medical expenses incurred up to the judgment date. When Bazner incurred additional medical expenses post-judgment, American refused payment, arguing the prior judgment was res judicata and required pre-approval for new expenses. Bazner initiated a new suit, and the trial court sided with him. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Bazner's claim for future medical expenses was not barred, reiterating that such expenses are recoverable under T.C.A. § 50-6-204 and established procedural rules for seeking them via petition in the original action. The court also found Bazner's decision to seek further medical attention from his treating physician reasonable under the circumstances. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding future medical payments and related issues.

AsbestosisOccupational DiseaseFuture Medical ExpensesPost-Judgment CareRes Judicata DefenseEmployer Medical AuthorizationInsurance LiabilityStatutory BenefitsAppellate ReviewRemand Order
References
6
Case No. 2016-03-0449
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2016

Rodgers, Katherine v. NHC Healthcare

Katherine Rodgers, an employee, filed an Expedited Hearing Request seeking temporary disability benefits and reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses after a work-related right shoulder injury. The employer, NHC Healthcare, and its carrier, Premier Group Insurance, had provided authorized medical panels, but Rodgers sought additional treatment without their authorization due to ongoing pain. The Court found that Rodgers' decision to seek unauthorized care was not reasonable, as she failed to properly notify her employer and did not establish the necessity and reasonableness of the associated charges. Furthermore, the Court concluded that she was not entitled to temporary disability benefits because no authorized medical provider had taken her completely off work, and she did not substantiate her claims regarding work restrictions. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Judge denied Ms. Rodgers' claims for both unauthorized medical treatment expenses and temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical ExpensesUnauthorized TreatmentExpedited HearingWork InjuryShoulder InjuryCertified Nursing AssistantEmployer ObligationsEmployee Responsibilities
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Relativity Fashion, LLC

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a motion for attorneys' fees and expenses filed by Relativity Media, LLC (and its affiliates RML Distribution Domestic, LLC, Armored Car Productions, LLC, and DR Productions, LLC, collectively 'Relativity') and Mr. Ryan Kavanaugh against Netflix, Inc. The dispute arose from Netflix's refusal to execute 'Date Extension Amendments' related to a License Agreement, prompting Relativity to seek relief under Section 1142 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court previously ruled that Netflix was barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel from asserting its claimed contractual rights to distribute films before theatrical release. In this opinion, the Court determined that Relativity was the 'prevailing party' under California Civil Code Section 1717 and the License Agreement's fee provision. Consequently, Relativity is entitled to reimbursement for its own reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. However, the Court denied Mr. Kavanaugh's request for reimbursement of his counsel's fees and expenses, concluding that he was not a party to the License Agreement and did not meet the exceptions for non-signatories to recover fees. The Court awarded Relativity $818,547.48, comprising $795,732.50 in attorneys’ fees and $22,814.98 in litigation expenses, against Netflix.

Attorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesContract LawCalifornia Civil Code Section 1717Bankruptcy Code Section 1142Prevailing PartyLodestar MethodHourly RatesJudicial EstoppelRes Judicata
References
85
Case No. Consolidated Chapter 13 Cases (e.g., 91-20422 to 97-36152)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Phillips

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses objections by chapter 13 trustees to the postpetition claims for attorney's fees and expenses filed by William A. Cohn, an attorney representing numerous chapter 13 debtors. Mr. Cohn had routinely filed these claims under 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(2), arguing it served as an alternative to the § 330 procedures for professional compensation. The Court found that § 1305(a)(2) is intended for exigent circumstances where prior trustee approval is impracticable, not for routine legal work, and that Mr. Cohn failed to meet its conditions. It emphasized that § 330, which requires notice, a hearing, and detailed documentation, is the appropriate procedural vehicle for approving attorney's fees to ensure reasonableness and benefit to the debtor. Consequently, the Court disallowed all of Mr. Cohn's postpetition claims filed under § 1305(a)(2), vacated prior administrative orders that had mistakenly allowed these claims, and ordered Mr. Cohn to either file proper § 330(a)(4)(B) applications with full time and expense documentation by July 31, 1998, or disgorge all received postconfirmation fees and expenses by August 14, 1998.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13 ProceedingsAttorney CompensationPostpetition ClaimsFee ApplicationsDisgorgement of FeesProcedural ComplianceProfessional EthicsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Errors
References
15
Case No. No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2021

The Matter of the Claim of Estate of Norman Youngjohn v. Berry Plastics Corporation

Decedent Norman Youngjohn, employed by Berry Plastics Corporation, suffered work-related injuries to his right shoulder and left elbow in 2014, leading to a workers' compensation claim. Before his permanent partial disability benefits claim for a schedule loss of use (SLU) award was resolved, Youngjohn died in March 2017 from a heart attack unrelated to his work injuries. He left no surviving spouse, minor children, or qualifying dependents. His estate sought the full value of the posthumous SLU award, arguing that 2009 amendments to the Workers' Compensation Law, which permitted lump sum SLU payments, rendered WCL § 15 (4) (d) inapplicable. This section limits an estate's recovery for unaccrued SLU benefits to reasonable funeral expenses in cases of unrelated death without qualifying survivors. The Workers' Compensation Board limited the award to funeral expenses, while the Appellate Division held that the estate was entitled to the portion accrued up to the date of death plus reasonable funeral expenses. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the 2009 amendments on lump sum payments did not implicitly alter WCL § 15 (4) (d)'s limitation on an estate's recovery of posthumous SLU awards. The Court emphasized that section 15 (4) (d) remains in effect and must be harmonized with the amendments, limiting recovery to benefits accrued before death and reasonable funeral expenses for the remainder.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Lump Sum PaymentEstate RecoveryFuneral ExpensesStatutory InterpretationAccrual of BenefitsNew York Court of AppealsUnrelated Death
References
35
Case No. SA:11-CV-788
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2013

Davis v. Perry

Plaintiffs, including Wendy Davis and LULAC, filed motions for attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs after successfully challenging Texas's Senate redistricting plan (Plan S148). They argued the plan diluted minority voting strength and lacked preclearance under the Voting Rights Act. The Court initially enjoined Plan S148 and implemented an interim plan (S172), which was later adopted by the Texas Legislature. Despite the Supreme Court's *Shelby County* decision invalidating a key VRA section, the Court found plaintiffs to be 'prevailing parties' due to the significant judicially sanctioned interim relief. The Court granted the fee motions in part, adjusting the requested amounts based on the reasonableness of hours, hourly rates, and allowable expenses, while disallowing fees for unverified support staff and clerical tasks.

Attorneys' FeesRedistrictingVoting Rights ActSection 5 VRASection 2 VRAFourteenth AmendmentFifteenth AmendmentInterim ReliefPrevailing PartyLodestar Method
References
84
Case No. W2015-01462-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Jean Dedmon v. Debbie Steelman

The Tennessee Supreme Court granted an appeal to resolve whether its prior holding in West v. Shelby County Healthcare Corp. applies to personal injury cases, specifically regarding the determination of 'reasonable medical expenses.' The Court clarified that the West decision, which defined 'reasonable charges' under the Hospital Lien Act, is limited to that statute and does not extend to personal injury claims. Upholding Tennessee's long-standing collateral source rule, the Court ruled that plaintiffs may present evidence of full, undiscounted medical bills as proof of reasonable expenses. Conversely, defendants are prohibited from introducing evidence of discounted rates accepted by medical providers due to the plaintiff's insurance, as such evidence contravenes the collateral source rule. The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision to allow full medical bills as evidence but reversed its stance on allowing defendants to introduce evidence of discounted payments to rebut reasonableness.

Personal InjuryCollateral Source RuleMedical ExpensesReasonable ChargesHospital Lien ActInsurance BenefitsTort LawDamagesAbrogation of RuleEvidentiary Rule
References
108
Case No. ADJ8878834
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

RAMIRO CALDERA vs. CAR SOUND EXHAUST SYSTEM, INC.; COMPWEST

This case involves a dispute over lien claimant Western Imaging's entitlement to reimbursement for subpoenaed records in a workers' compensation claim. The WCJ initially disallowed the lien, finding Western Imaging failed to prove the records' reasonableness and necessity. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the WCJ's decision and returning the case for further proceedings. The Board clarified that medical-legal expenses are recoverable if incurred to prove or disprove a contested claim and that reasonableness is assessed at the time of expense incurrence, regardless of whether the subpoenaed records ultimately proved the claim. The Board also emphasized the defendant's obligation to specifically object to such expenses within a timely manner.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantMedical-Legal ExpensesContested ClaimLabor Code Section 4620Labor Code Section 4621Labor Code Section 4622Reasonable and NecessaryBurden of ProofDiscovery
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 6,838 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