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

Swift Independent Packing Co. v. District Union Local One

This case involves a dispute between Swift Independent Packing Company and District Union Local One over a labor arbitration award. Swift sought to vacate the award, which was issued by Arbitrator Mario A. Procopio and favored the Union regarding work schedules and overtime pay under a collective bargaining agreement. Swift raised several objections, including alleged arbitrator bias, reliance on facts not in evidence, the award lacking essence from the agreement, and refusal to hear testimony. The District Court, emphasizing its limited scope of review over arbitration awards, denied Swift's motion for summary judgment to vacate the award and granted the Union's motion to confirm it, concluding that no grounds for vacatur existed and that Swift had waived its right to object to the alleged bias.

Labor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardVacatur of AwardConfirmation of AwardArbitrator BiasJudicial ReviewWaiver DoctrineOvertime PayWork Schedules
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Terito v. John S. Swift Co.

Dominick A. Terito, a former employee of John S. Swift Co., Inc., sought a declaratory judgment regarding his pension rights after his employment was terminated. The company's retirement committee forfeited his benefits, citing "wilful misconduct financially injurious to the Company" for leaving work early due to a son's medical emergency. Terito contended this forfeiture was arbitrary and capricious, especially given the company's inconsistent enforcement of rules and his 35 years of service. The court found no demonstrable financial injury to the corporation and concluded that the committee's determination was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The plaintiff was granted a vested interest in the pension plan, but his claim for immediate damages was dismissed as he had not yet reached the age of eligibility for benefits.

Pension RightsEmployee TerminationWillful MisconductForfeiture of BenefitsArbitrary and CapriciousERISA ApplicabilityCompany Pension PlanEmployment LawDeclaratory ReliefAbuse of Discretion
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valdes v. Swift Transportation Co.

Lori A. Valdes sued her employer, Swift Transportation Co., Inc., for alleged sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Swift Transportation moved to dismiss the case or, alternatively, to compel arbitration, citing two signed arbitration agreements. District Judge Chin granted Swift's motion to dismiss, holding that the arbitration agreements were enforceable under New York law, even if the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply to Valdes as a transportation worker. The court rejected Valdes' arguments regarding the arbitration agreement's validity, waiver of jury trial rights, forum inadequacy, unconscionability, and cost burden. The action was dismissed without prejudice, allowing for reinstatement if further proceedings are needed post-arbitration.

Employment LawSexual HarassmentRetaliationArbitration AgreementTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawFAA ExemptionMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Arbitration Act
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swift v. Swift

This case involves an appeal by the petitioner-mother from a Family Court order in Broome County, which granted the respondent-father unsupervised visitation rights with their two children. The petitioner alleged sexual abuse of their daughter, Sarah, by the respondent, leading to a temporary order for supervised visitation. Despite two reports to the State Child Abuse Hotline, which were deemed unfounded after investigation, the petitioner sought termination of visitation. The Family Court ultimately found that the petitioner failed to sustain her burden of proof regarding the sexual abuse allegations, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court deferred to the trial court's credibility findings and its reasons for rejecting corroborating "validation evidence," noting concerns about the petitioner's influence, the social worker's inexperience, and the context of contested custody litigation.

Child VisitationSexual Abuse AllegationsCredibility FindingsHearsay CorroborationValidation EvidenceAppellate ReviewFamily Court OrderParental HostilityChild Custody LitigationExpert Testimony
References
3
Case No. ADJ9247606
Regular
Apr 08, 2015

AMY SWIFT vs. CITY OF CHULA VISTA, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. The defendant argued the case should be set for trial because the applicant failed to object to their Declaration of Readiness. However, the Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning and found removal to be an extraordinary remedy not warranted in this instance. The defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

Petition for RemovalWCJDeclaration of ReadinessOff CalendarSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationExtraordinary RemedyADJ9247606WCAB Rule 10416(d)
References
2
Case No. ADJ11252070 ADJ11527187
Regular
Oct 05, 2020

Gregory Ruth vs. Swift Transportation

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim by Gregory Ruth against Swift Transportation. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend findings, specifically adding neck and low back injuries to the applicant's claims for both specific and cumulative trauma. The Board affirmed the administrative law judge's findings on injury arising out of and in the course of employment, rejecting the defendant's argument that the truck seat was not broken. The decision defers injury claims for all other body parts.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSelf-insuredInjury AOE/COEMedical EvidenceLabor Code Section 5701Cumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryNeck InjuryLow Back InjuryWCJ Credibility Determination
References
4
Case No. ADJ3896322
Regular
Oct 21, 2014

JEREMY SYKES vs. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION

This case involves Jeremy Sykes's Petition for Removal (denominated as a Petition for Recusal/Disqualification) against Swift Transportation and WCJ David Thorne. Sykes alleged bias by the WCJ, but his petition lacked required verification and was untimely. The WCAB denied removal, adopting the WCJ's report which found the petition procedurally deficient and Sykes's testimony at a prior trial exceeded the filing deadline. The Board also warned Sykes against disrespectful remarks towards the WCJ and the Board.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasApplicant in propria personaRules of Practice and ProcedureSanctionable ConductMedical TreatmentExpedited HearingOath of WitnessRecusal
References
0
Case No. ADJ7283860
Regular
Oct 12, 2016

AMY ADAMS vs. TROIKA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Amy Adams' Petition for Reconsideration, finding the WCJ's decision was not a "final" order as it only addressed an interlocutory procedural or evidentiary issue. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, stating Adams failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only in limited circumstances. Therefore, the Board upheld the WCJ's decision by dismissing and denying the petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
0
Case No. ADJ12171548
Regular
Apr 21, 2023

AMY HEYMAN vs. AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the prior findings and order in this case concerning Amy Heyman's claim against AT&T Mobility Services. The WCAB determined it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the necessity of home health care because the Utilization Review (UR) determination for the request was timely. The Board found the UR decision was issued within the statutory timeframe based on the received date of the request. Therefore, disputes regarding the medical necessity of the home health care must be resolved through Independent Medical Review (IMR).

Utilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewFindings of Fact and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalHome Health CareRequest for AuthorizationTimelinessMedical NecessityJurisdiction
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rymer v. Colvin

Plaintiff Amy Lynn Rymer sought review of the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying her Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Rymer alleged disability due to bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety, with the case being heard by ALJ Jennifer Whang before reaching the District Court. District Judge Michael A. Telesca granted Rymer's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied the Commissioner's cross-motion. The court found that the ALJ failed to properly apply the treating physician rule regarding Dr. Choe's opinion and made erroneous findings concerning Listing 12.04 and the Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) assessment. Consequently, the matter was reversed and remanded to the Commissioner for the sole purpose of calculating and paying benefits to the plaintiff.

Social Security ActDisability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeBipolar DisorderDepressionAnxietyPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderPersonality DisorderTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional Capacity
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 59 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