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

Levine v. United Parcel Service

A claimant, employed by United Parcel Service, suffered stress and mental depression on May 13, 1982, allegedly due to supervisor harassment, which the Workers' Compensation Board ruled an accidental injury. The employer and its carrier appealed, challenging the facts of the incident and the medical causation, especially given the claimant's preexisting anxiety. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing its prerogative to assess witness credibility and weigh conflicting medical evidence. The Board's findings, based on the claimant's testimony and psychiatrist's report, were deemed supported by substantial evidence. The decision affirmed the compensability of mental injury precipitated by psychic trauma under the Workers' Compensation Law.

Mental InjuryPsychic TraumaHarassmentSupervisor ConductAccidental InjuryPreexisting ConditionCredibility of WitnessesMedical EvidencePosttraumatic Stress DisorderAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Engler v. United Parcel Service

Claimant, a delivery driver for United Parcel Service, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2001, alleging interstitial pulmonary fibrosis due to exposure to dust and irritants. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found he suffered an occupational disease and permanent partial disability. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed, but the Court reversed in 2003, remitting the case to consider accidental injury. In an amended decision, the Board ruled claimant sustained an accidental injury from airborne irritants. The employer and carrier appealed again. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's condition arose from unusual environmental factors within his delivery vehicle, consistent with medical opinions linking his lung disease to mixed dust exposure at work.

Interstitial Pulmonary FibrosisOccupational ExposureWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausally Related InjuryDelivery Vehicle EnvironmentAirborne IrritantsMedical TestimonyBiopsy FindingsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mohertus Trading Co. v. United Parcel Service Co.

Plaintiff Mohertus Trading Company sued defendant United Parcel Service (UPS) for $10,497, alleging loss of goods during shipping. Mohertus claims its agent mistakenly undervalued the goods at $6,000 instead of $16,000 due to an error by a UPS agent during repackaging. UPS reimbursed Mohertus $6,000, asserting full satisfaction of their contract. Mohertus seeks to recover the full $16,000, implicitly asking the court to reform the contract based on mutual mistake. The court, noting the case falls under the Carmack Amendment, found that Mohertus raised a genuine issue of fact regarding mutual mistake, making a trial necessary to determine the parties' intent and the reasonableness of the agent's reliance. Consequently, UPS's motion for summary judgment was denied.

Contract DisputeMutual MistakeSummary Judgment MotionCarrier LiabilityCarmack AmendmentInterstate ShipmentGoods LostShipping InsuranceValuation DisputeContract Reformation
References
9
Case No. 525474
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2019

Matter of Olaya v. United Parcel Serv. Inc.

Guillermo Olaya, a delivery driver, sustained three work-related injuries to his lower back, left leg, and right knee between 2009 and 2012 while working for United Parcel Service Inc. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the right knee claim and awarded temporary disability, later finding his condition schedulable. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, declining to consider Olaya's untimely supplemental submissions, and subsequently denied his application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both Board decisions, finding no abuse of discretion in rejecting the late evidence and concluding that substantial evidence, including conflicting medical testimony, supported the Board's determination that Olaya's injuries were schedulable rather than warranting continuing disability benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of UseMaximum Medical ImprovementIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceBoard DiscretionConsequential InjuryDisability BenefitsUntimely Submissions
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraternal Order of Police, National Labor Council, USPS No. 2 v. United States Postal Service

The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and 13 individual Postal Police Officers sued the United States Postal Service and its employees, alleging violations of federal and state law, as well as their employment contract. Plaintiffs challenged restrictions on their law enforcement authority, citing 40 U.S.C. § 318, and also claimed illegal locker searches under the Fourth Amendment and New York law. The defendants sought dismissal, primarily arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the claims. It ruled that Section 318 does not confer a private right of action and that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the grievance procedures outlined in their collective bargaining agreement and the Postal Reorganization Act for their search and contract-related claims.

Labor LawPostal ServicePolice PowersFourth AmendmentLocker SearchCollective Bargaining AgreementExhaustion of RemediesPrivate Right of ActionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to Dismiss
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. United Parcel Service

Plaintiff, a former United Parcel Service employee and union member, was discharged for alleged theft after being accused of stealing a package of watches. Although he was arrested, he was later acquitted of petit larceny. An arbitrator subsequently found his discharge was not for just cause and ordered his reinstatement with back pay and benefits. Following this, the plaintiff commenced an action against United Parcel Service for false imprisonment/unlawful arrest. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing preemption by the Labor Management Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Act, and sought to add affirmative defenses. Special Term denied summary judgment but granted leave to amend the answer. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding the tort claim was not preempted, but found that Special Term erred in refusing to dismiss the defendants' affirmative defenses regarding federal preemption and the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

False ImprisonmentUnlawful ArrestLabor Management Relations Act PreemptionNational Labor Relations Act PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive Remedy ProvisionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTort Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2016

Alfonso v. Lopez

Plaintiff commenced an action for damages due to injuries sustained at United Parcel Service, Inc.'s (defendant) facility. Plaintiff had previously filed a workers’ compensation claim and received benefits, listing defendant as the employer. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court granted the motion, which was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court emphasized the exclusive nature of workers' compensation as a remedy and the Workers’ Compensation Board's primary jurisdiction over such matters, concluding that the benefits plaintiff received were his sole remedy against the defendant at this juncture.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissEmployee StatusOnondaga CountyNew York LawTort Claim DismissalWorkers' Compensation Board
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fischer v. United Parcel Service

Claimant, a delivery driver for United Parcel Service, retired in April 2006 after establishing two work-related back injuries in 1998 and 2001. In 2008, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant permanently partially disabled with a 50% earning capacity and transferred liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. Subsequently, another WCLJ found claimant's withdrawal from the labor market involuntary due to his causally-related disability, made awards retroactive to his retirement date, and transferred liability back to the carrier. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding claimant's retirement was a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market and that Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a applied. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, stating it was based on an erroneous finding regarding medical treatment records, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketPermanent Partial DisabilityEarning CapacitySpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Board ReversalMedical EvidenceRemittalBack InjuryDelivery DriverRetroactive Awards
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiDomenico v. C & S Aeromatik Supplies, Inc.

The plaintiff, Frank DiDomenico, was injured by a leaking hazardous material package while employed by United Parcel Service (UPS). UPS's subsequent dilatory responses to discovery demands and willful destruction of crucial evidence, including the package and related records, prevented DiDomenico from identifying and suing the third-party shipper. This conduct also prejudiced co-defendant CA Aromatics Co., which destroyed its own records due to UPS's delays. The appellate court reversed the lower court's denial of sanctions, finding UPS's actions constituted willful non-compliance with court orders and spoliation of evidence. Consequently, UPS's answer was stricken, and summary judgment was granted to DiDomenico against UPS for impairing his right to sue, and to CA Aromatics Co. for indemnification.

Spoliation of EvidenceSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsCPLR 3126Workers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionHazardous MaterialsDocument DestructionAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meehan v. United States Postal Service

Plaintiff James Meehan, Administrator of Michael J. Meehan's estate, initiated an action against the U.S. Postal Service, U.S.A., and U.S. Office of Personnel Management under the Federal Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLI). He alleged that his son, Michael J. Meehan, was wrongfully denied free life insurance, despite having signed a waiver during his employment. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff had failed to exhaust the mandatory grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. The court concurred with the defendants, ruling that the claim constituted a breach of the collective bargaining agreement, thereby necessitating the exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to judicial review. Additionally, the court noted that the action would have been time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations and that Meehan had properly waived his life insurance.

Federal Group Life Insurance ActSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProceduresArbitrationExhaustion of Administrative RemediesStatute of LimitationsLife Insurance Waiver
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 25,121 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