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

Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Plaintiff Dean Nicosia filed a class action against Amazon.com, Inc., alleging Amazon sold weight loss supplements ("1 Day Diet") containing sibutramine, a controlled substance, in violation of consumer protection laws and breach of warranties. Amazon moved to dismiss, arguing all claims were subject to a mandatory arbitration clause and class action waiver in its "Conditions of Use." Nicosia also sought a preliminary injunction to halt sales and mandate special packaging and consumer notices. The Court granted Amazon's motion to dismiss, finding Nicosia assented to the arbitration clause. The Court denied Nicosia's motion for a preliminary injunction due to lack of standing, as Amazon had already removed the product, and Nicosia failed to demonstrate a likelihood of future injury or success on the merits under the Consumer Product Safety Act.

Consumer ProtectionProduct LiabilityMandatory ArbitrationClass Action WaiverPreliminary InjunctionStandingSibutramineWeight Loss SupplementsFederal Arbitration ActConsumer Product Safety Act
References
78
Case No. 2019-01-0368
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2019

Ibarra, Grecia M. v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.,

Ms. Grecia M. Ibarra, an employee, filed a claim alleging a low back injury from repetitively lifting heavy boxes while working for Amazon. An expedited hearing was held to determine her entitlement to a panel of orthopedists, which Amazon disputed, citing lack of timely notice, an identifiable injury, and causation. The Court found that Ms. Ibarra provided timely notice to Amazon and sustained a gradual, identifiable injury. Although Dr. Ballard, the panel physician, did not provide a causation opinion, the Court ruled that denying the claim on that basis at this stage was premature. Consequently, the Court ordered Amazon to provide Ms. Ibarra an orthopedist panel for her back injury.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryGradual InjuryTimely NoticeCausationOrthopedist PanelExpedited HearingCumulative TraumaRepetitive MotionEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. 2021-01-0057
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2022

Bailey, Marie v. Amazon

The employee, Marie P. Bailey, sustained an injury to her right arm and shoulder at Amazon. Initially, the employer accepted the claim but subsequently denied it after Bailey missed two medical appointments. Bailey contended that one appointment was missed due to a COVID-19 diagnosis and she was unaware of the second. The trial court found sufficient evidence to support Bailey's claim for additional medical benefits, ordering Amazon to authorize further care. Amazon appealed, but the Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employer's denial based on alleged noncompliance was unsupported by Tennessee law and that a medical questionnaire used by the employer's counsel contained misstatements of law, rendering its findings untrustworthy. The case was remanded.

Medical BenefitsMissed AppointmentsMedical NoncomplianceCausationIntervening EventTrial Court AffirmationAppeals Board ReviewEmployer DenialEmployee RightsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
9
Case No. 2022-05-1262, 2022-05-0597
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2024

Burris, Stuart v. WWL Vehicle Services Americas, Inc., and Burris v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

The employee, Stuart Burris, filed two separate workers' compensation petitions against two different employers, WWL Vehicle Services Americas, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC, for distinct low back and hip injuries sustained in 2020 and 2022, respectively. The trial court consolidated the cases and, in an interlocutory hearing, awarded benefits against Amazon, partly relying on evidence introduced by WWL. Amazon appealed, arguing that evidence introduced by one employer in a consolidated case should not be used against another, and that the employee was effectively relieved of his burden of proof. The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated the trial court's order. It held that consolidation does not merge separate actions or alter evidentiary requirements, meaning evidence must be presented by a party to the specific claim against which it is to be used. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Workers' Compensation AppealsCase ConsolidationEvidentiary BurdenMedical CausationAuthorized Treating PhysicianPre-existing ConditionInterlocutory HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsJudicial EconomyRule 42.01
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03081 [205 AD3d 485]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2022

People v. Amazon.com

The case involves an appeal by Amazon.com from an order denying its motion to dismiss a complaint alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 215, and 740 related to COVID-19 workplace safety and retaliation against workers. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting Amazon's motion to dismiss. The court found that the Labor Law §§ 215 and 740 claims, concerning retaliation for protesting unsafe conditions, were preempted by the NLRA as they involved 'concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid or protection.' Furthermore, the court noted a pending NLRB proceeding on similar retaliation allegations, posing a risk of inconsistent rulings. The Labor Law § 200 claim seeking injunctive relief based on state COVID-19 guidelines was dismissed as moot, as the State had withdrawn the relevant public health guidance.

COVID-19 Workplace SafetyRetaliationLabor LawNLRA PreemptionGarmon PreemptionMootness DoctrineInjunctive ReliefAppellate ReviewWorkers' RightsWorkplace Conditions
References
6
Case No. 2015-01-0036
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2015

Kirk, Regina v. Amazon.com, Inc.

The case involves Regina Kirk, an employee of Amazon.com, Inc., who sustained a work-related left shoulder injury. This is the second interlocutory appeal. The initial appeal denied medical and temporary disability benefits, which was affirmed. Subsequently, Kirk filed a second request for an expedited hearing, supported by her orthopedic physician's responses. The trial court then awarded medical and temporary disability benefits, concluding Kirk would likely prevail. Amazon appealed this decision. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, finding that the evidence supported the determination that Kirk is likely to overcome the presumption of correctness afforded to the initial treating physician's causation opinion and establish her injury as work-related.

Workers' Compensation AppealsShoulder ImpingementTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical CausationPresumption of CorrectnessExpedited Hearing ProcedureOrthopedic Medical OpinionFactual and Procedural BackgroundTrial Court AffirmationRemand for Proceedings
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07104
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Khaychuk (Amazon Logistics, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns an appeal by Amazon Logistics, Inc. (ALI) from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled that ALI was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for claimant Alexander Khaychuk and others similarly situated. Khaychuk, a delivery partner (DP) for ALI's Amazon Flex platform, applied for unemployment benefits after his engagement ended. The Board determined an employment relationship existed, reversing an Administrative Law Judge's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that ALI exercised sufficient control over significant aspects of the DPs' work, such as providing customers, assigning deliveries, setting time frames, and unilaterally determining fees. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, despite arguments that could support an independent contractor classification.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipAmazon FlexDelivery PartnersControl TestUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentRemuneration
References
7
Case No. 2022-05-0554
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2023

REAZKALLAH, MAIKEL v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC

Mr. Reazkallah claimed a low back injury at Amazon, which Amazon denied based on Dr. Harold Nevels's opinion that the injury was not primarily work-related. Mr. Reazkallah's attempts to introduce other medical evidence were inadmissible. The Court found Mr. Reazkallah failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of Dr. Nevels's causation opinion, as he provided no admissible medical proof that his injury primarily arose from his employment. Consequently, the Court denied all requested medical and disability benefits, dismissing the claim with prejudice.

Workers' CompensationInjury CausationMedical EvidenceDenial of BenefitsEmployee Burden of ProofAuthorized Physician OpinionPresumption of CorrectnessLow Back InjuryDisability BenefitsMedical Treatment Denial
References
2
Case No. 2019-01-0368
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2020

Ibarra, Grecia v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.

Employee Grecia Ibarra reported back pain after lifting totes at work and sought medical benefits. After initial treatment and a referral to an orthopedic specialist by Dr. Natasha Ballard, Amazon declined the referral, asserting Ibarra failed to provide proper notice or identify a specific injury incident. The trial court ordered Amazon to provide a panel of orthopedic specialists. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, finding Ibarra provided sufficient notice and evidence of a work-related condition resulting from a "set of incidents," and that the physician's referral was presumed medically necessary. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryMedical BenefitsOrthopedic ReferralNotice of InjuryCumulative TraumaExpedited HearingMedical CausationEmployer ObligationsEmployee Rights
References
6
Case No. 2020-08-0229
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Holmes, LaDonna v. Amazon.Com

The Court granted Amazon's Motion for Summary Judgment. Ladonna Holmes, the employee, failed to pursue a claim for benefits for a December 8, 2019 injury and did not cooperate in setting mediation. Amazon contended that Ms. Holmes instigated an altercation with a co-employee, which resulted in their termination, a violation of Amazon's Code of Conduct. The Court found that Amazon proved Ms. Holmes was guilty of misconduct and was aware of the rule, and Amazon enforced the rule. Therefore, Amazon was entitled to summary judgment, and Ms. Holmes's claim was dismissed with prejudice.

Summary JudgmentEmployee MisconductWorkers' Compensation ClaimsPolicy ViolationAltercation at WorkEmployer's Code of ConductDismissal with PrejudiceRule 56.03Tennessee Appellate ProcedureWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 63 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