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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ18961005
Regular
Sep 23, 2025

JAQUELINE GARCIA vs. AMAZON.COM, INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL

Applicant Jaqueline Garcia petitioned for reconsideration after a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) determined she was an independent contractor, not an employee of Amazon.com, Inc., when she sustained injuries. The Appeals Board granted the petition, citing concerns over the WCJ's application of the burden of proof regarding employment status and the evidential weight given to the 'Amazon Flex Independent Contractor Terms of Service' document. The Board emphasized that the record did not clearly establish if the applicant met her initial burden or if the defendant successfully rebutted the employment presumption under applicable codes. Consequently, a final decision on the merits of the reconsideration is deferred to allow for further review of the factual and legal issues.

Amazon FlexIndependent ContractorProposition 22ABC TestDynamexBusiness and Professions Code 7451ReconsiderationFindings of FactPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
26
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02149 [215 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

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

Nancy Morales, a delivery partner for Amazon Logistics, Inc. (ALI), applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined an employment relationship existed between Morales and ALI, making ALI liable for contributions. ALI appealed, arguing that Morales was an independent contractor and not totally unemployed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that ALI exercised sufficient control over its delivery partners, mirroring precedent set in *Matter of Khaychuk*. The court also ruled that the 'not totally unemployed' argument was not properly before it, as it was outside the scope of the administrative hearing.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery ServicesAmazon FlexControl TestAppellate ReviewLabor Law ComplianceUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02604 [204 AD3d 1289]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

Matter of Minichino v. Amazon.Com DEDC LLC

Claimant, Alexandra Minichino, a picker at Amazon.com DEDC LLC, filed for workers' compensation benefits after experiencing numbness in her right arm and shoulder on December 20, 2018, attributing it to an occupational/repetitive stress injury. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim due to inconsistencies. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified the decision, ruling that Minichino sustained an accidental and causally-related injury to her cervical spine. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, deferring to its factual findings and resolution of conflicting medical testimony.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseCausally-Related InjuryCervical SpineBoard DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyCredibilityAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01590 [225 AD3d 1075]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Matter of Dent v. Amazon.Com Servs., Inc.

Claimant Naomi Dent sustained injuries to her left foot, ankle, and lower leg when she was trampled by fellow passengers while boarding a public bus on her second day of employment at Amazon.com Services, Inc.'s fulfillment center. She subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was controverted by her employer and its carrier. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the claim, ruling that the injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the injuries occurred in a public area away from the workplace and did not involve a special hazard or a close association of the access route with the employment premises.

Workers' CompensationPublic TransportationCourse of EmploymentOff-Premises InjurySpecial HazardGoing and Coming RuleAppellate ReviewInjury CompensationBoard DecisionThird Department
References
7
Case No. WCB Case No. G076 8920
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2023

FAZEKAS, WILLIAM J. v. TIME WARNER CABLE, INC.

The case involves Adan E. Cifuentes, who sustained an injury while working for Amazon.com. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the claimant had a permanent medical impairment and directed the carrier to pay for a medical cannabis prescription. The carrier appealed, arguing the WCLJ lacked jurisdiction and that medical cannabis is not covered under the Workers' Compensation Law. The Board Panel affirmed the WCLJ's decision, finding that the WCLJ had jurisdiction and that the medical cannabis prescription was properly awarded as necessary medical treatment for the claimant's work-related injury.

Workers' Compensation BoardMedical CannabisPermanent Medical ImpairmentJurisdictionMedical TreatmentAppellate ReviewWork-Related InjuryPrescription ReimbursementWCLJ DecisionBoard Panel Review
References
6
Case No. CV-22-2154
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Naomi Dent

Naomi Dent, an employee of Amazon.com Services, Inc. in Staten Island, sustained injuries to her left foot, ankle, and lower leg while attempting to board a public bus on her second day of work, claiming she was pushed and trampled. She reported the incident approximately two weeks later and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board denied her claim, ruling that her injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, as the incident occurred off-premises and on public transportation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting the 'special hazard' alleged was a common risk of public transit, unrelated to employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentArise Out Of EmploymentGoing and Coming RulePublic TransportationOff-Premises InjurySpecial HazardAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBus Accident
References
7
Case No. 533683
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Alexandra Minichino

Claimant, a picker for Amazon.com DEDC LLC, experienced symptoms including loss of feeling in her right arm and shoulder while working on December 20, 2018. She initially filed a workers' compensation claim for an occupational/repetitive stress injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim due to inconsistencies. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this, ruling that she sustained an accidental and causally-related injury to her cervical spine. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination regarding both the occurrence of an accidental injury arising out of employment and its causal relationship to the claimant's cervical spine condition, deferring to the Board's resolution of conflicting medical testimony.

Workers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionAccidental InjuryCausally Related InjuryCervical Spine InjuryOccupational Disease ClaimRepetitive Stress InjuryIndependent Medical ExaminationWitness CredibilitySubstantial Evidence
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 19 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