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

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tokyo Electron Arizona, Inc. v. Discreet Industries Corp.

This order addresses the plaintiff Tokyo Electron Arizona's (TAZ) application for reasonable attorney's fees and costs against defendants Discreet Industries and Ovadia Meron (Discreet), pursuant to Federal Rule 37. The court determines the appropriate award by assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended, applying the lodestar method. While acknowledging the high caliber of work, the court reduced Mr. Haug's hourly rate and applied a 10% overall reduction to the billed hours to account for potential overlap. Additionally, the court found TAZ's copying and transcript costs reasonable and partially awarded costs for a computer-generated Power Point presentation. Ultimately, TAZ was awarded $55,751.79 in fees and $5386.19 in costs, totaling $61,137.98.

Attorney's FeesCostsDiscovery SanctionsFederal Rule 37Lodestar MethodHourly RatesReasonable HoursEastern District of New YorkSouthern District of New YorkWork Product Doctrine
References
26
Case No. ADJ10138143
Regular
Sep 01, 2017

SHIRLEY BROWN vs. MERCY MEDICAL CENTER MERCED COMMUNITY CAMPUS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration, amending a prior decision. The Board ruled that attorney's fees for the applicant's counsel should be based entirely on their reasonable hourly rate and hours worked, not a combination of hourly rate and a percentage of the recovery. This decision clarified that fees owed by an employer under Labor Code § 4064(c) for an unrepresented employee's attorney are determined by the reasonableness of hours and hourly rate, not the indemnity awarded. Consequently, the applicant's attorney was awarded $10,758.75.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney's FeesHourly RatePercentage of RecoveryLabor Code § 4064Declaration of Readiness to ProceedStipulations with Request for AwardQuantum MeruitIndemnity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aslam v. Malen & Associates, P.C.

This case concerns Mohammad Aslam's complaint against Malen & Associates for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). After a settlement agreement, the court was tasked with determining reasonable attorneys' fees for the plaintiff's counsel, James Bahamonde. The court applied the 'presumptively reasonable fee' method, analyzing Bahamonde's hourly rate and the hours reasonably expended. The court made several reductions to the requested hours for tasks such as researching jury instructions, preparing exhibits, preparing billing records, and trial preparation. Ultimately, the court awarded Bahamonde $63,927.50 in attorneys' fees and $1,162.50 in costs, affirming the plaintiff's significant success in the FDCPA claim.

FDCPAAttorneys' FeesSettlement AgreementStatutory DamagesActual DamagesHourly RateLodestar MethodSecond CircuitConsumer ProtectionDebt Collection
References
17
Case No. ADJ7415342
Regular
Jul 01, 2013

Maggie Davis vs. Kern Medical Center, County of Kern

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Kern's Petition for Reconsideration regarding an award of attorney's fees. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to award applicant's attorney $770.00 based on 2.2 hours at $350.00 per hour for deposition representation. The Board found the defendant's arguments regarding the hourly rate, comparing it to physician and defense attorney rates, to be irrelevant and frivolous. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that applicant attorneys' fees are distinct from defense counsel's billing practices and established $350.00 per hour as reasonable for a Certified Workers' Compensation Specialist in the Bakersfield office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code §5710Deposition Attorney's FeesHourly RateCertified SpecialistBakersfieldKern Medical CenterCounty of KernApplicant Attorney
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton v. General Motors Hourly-Rate Employee's Pension Plan

Plaintiff Gary Hamilton, proceeding pro se, initiated this action on June 26, 2014, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), alleging improper denial of pension benefits, breach of fiduciary duty, and equitable estoppel. He sought additional credited service for his tenure at non-foundry plants, contending that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should modify his pension calculation as if his entire service had been at a designated foundry location. The defendants, General Motors Corporation Hourly-Rate Employee’s Pension Plan and General Motors, LLC, argued that the Plan's terms unambiguously require actual employment in designated foundry classifications for enhanced benefits and that the MOU's purpose was solely to facilitate employee transfers, not to alter pension benefits. The Court, applying an arbitrary and capricious standard of review, found the defendants' interpretation of both the Plan and the MOU to be reasonable. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's claims in their entirety.

ERISAPension BenefitsFiduciary DutyEquitable EstoppelSummary JudgmentPlan AdministratorCredited ServiceFoundry JobsMemorandum of UnderstandingArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
30
Case No. ADJ1543782
Regular
Aug 18, 2009

Richard E. Knudsen vs. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

In this workers' compensation case, the Board denied the defendant City of Beverly Hills' reconsideration of its prior decision. The Board had overturned a judge's finding that a police officer's shoulder injury sustained while exercising in the station gym during off-duty hours was not industrial. The Board determined the injury was compensable because it was a reasonable expectancy of employment under the specific circumstances. This decision reinforces the finding that the officer's workout was a reasonable part of his employment, even during off-duty hours.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Beverly Hillspolice officerleft shoulder injuryindustrial injuryreasonable expectancyoff-duty hoursgymcompensablereconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ3670273 (STK 0188965)
Regular
Dec 27, 2013

ROBERT CRANE vs. SMT RESOURCE/GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, as administered by CHARTIS CLAIMS, INC.

This case involves a request for supplemental attorney's fees for services rendered in appealing a workers' compensation decision. The Court of Appeal previously remanded the case to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) to determine reasonable fees for the applicant's attorney. The applicant's attorney requested $7,652.00 for 19.13 hours of work at $400 per hour. The WCAB found this amount reasonable and awarded it to the applicant's attorneys, Rockwell, Kelly & Duarte, LLP.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of AppealSupplemental Attorney's FeeLabor Code § 5801Appellate ServicesReasonable Attorney FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewTime SpentHourly Rate
References
0
Case No. ADJ4094302 (AHM 0101287)
Regular
Jun 08, 2010

ROBERT STAMPS vs. KENNY-SHEA-TRAYLOR-FRONTIER-KEMPER JOINT VENTURE; AIG SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a supplemental attorney's fee award for the applicant's attorney, John M. Urban, under Labor Code §5801. The Court of Appeal denied the defendant's petition for writ of review, finding no reasonable basis and remanding for attorney's fees. Applicant's attorney requested $5400.00 for 18 hours of work at $300 per hour, which the Board found reasonable. The Board awarded the requested amount to John M. Urban against the defendant joint venture.

ADJ4094302SUPPLEMENTAL ATTORNEY'S FEESLABOR CODE §5801Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate Districtpetition for writ of reviewno reasonable basisremandattorney's feesapplicant's attorneyJohn M. Urban
References
1
Case No. ADJ6861829
Regular
Jun 13, 2012

BART JAMES JOHNSON vs. BEYETTE'S TREE CARE

This case involves a supplemental award of attorney's fees to Bart James Johnson's attorney, pursuant to Labor Code § 5801. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review, finding no reasonable basis. Consequently, the case was remanded for attorney's fees. The applicant's attorney requested $3,500.00 for ten hours of work at $350 per hour related to the writ of review. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board deemed this fee reasonable and awarded it against the uninsured employer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewRemandReasonable Attorney FeesStipulationPetition for FeeAnswer to PetitionLegal Services
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 4,817 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