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

Anderson v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Joseph Anderson, Jr., an African-American former employee of Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (ABI), sued ABI alleging discriminatory discharge based on race in violation of Title VII. Anderson was terminated in November 1985 for falsifying call and expense reports and for contacting clients during a suspension, violating company policy. After exhausting administrative remedies with the NYSDHR and EEOC, Anderson filed this complaint. ABI moved for summary judgment, asserting the EEOC lacked authority to issue a right-to-sue letter, the claim was barred by laches, and Anderson failed to establish a discrimination claim. The court ruled that the EEOC had authority and rejected the laches defense. However, the court granted ABI's motion for summary judgment, finding that while Anderson established a prima facie case of discrimination, he failed to demonstrate that ABI's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Race DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationLaches DefenseEEOC AuthorityAdministrative ExhaustionFalsification of DocumentsPretextPrima Facie Case
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black v. Anheuser-Busch In Bev

Plaintiff Randall Black, a former employee of Anheuser-Busch Distributors of New York, Inc., filed a complaint asserting various claims, including breach of contract. Anheuser-Busch moved for summary judgment to dismiss Black's remaining breach-of-contract claim. The court found that Black failed to allege a valid breach of contract against Anheuser-Busch and that the claim was precluded by the "law of the case" doctrine due to a prior dismissal of a hybrid LMRA section 301 claim. Furthermore, the court determined that even if a valid claim existed, it would be time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Black's breach-of-contract claim was dismissed with prejudice.

Summary judgmentbreach of contractLabor-Management Relations ActSection 301collective bargaining agreementduty of fair representationtime-barredstatute of limitationspro sewrongful termination
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanger v. Busch (In Re Busch)

The case involves Jacqueline Sanger's attempt to deem a $430,232.20 judgment debt against David Busch nondischargeable in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) for "willful and malicious injury." The debt originated from a default judgment in a District Court action where Sanger alleged sexual harassment by Busch and his company, Albany Air Systems, Inc., under Title VII and state law, leading to awards for compensatory and punitive damages. The Bankruptcy Court, however, denied Sanger's claim. It found that while Busch's actions were malicious, Sanger failed to prove that Busch specifically *intended* to cause her injuries, a critical element for "willfulness" under § 523(a)(6) as interpreted by the Supreme Court in *Kawaauhau v. Geiger*. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, allowing the debt to be discharged.

Bankruptcy LawDischargeability of DebtWillful and Malicious InjurySexual HarassmentTitle VIICollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionPunitive DamagesIntentional TortChapter 7 Bankruptcy
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Banner v. Anheuser-Busch Companies

Claimant, a forklift operator, sought workers' compensation benefits for right knee and left hip injuries sustained in December 2005. After an initial award, the Workers' Compensation Board rescinded benefits, concluding that the disabling hip condition (avascular necrosis of the left femoral head) was not causally related to the work injury, based on an impartial specialist's report and other medical testimony. On appeal, the Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions on causation was supported by substantial evidence. The Court also found that the omission of claimant's testimony minutes was not reversible error, as the Board had ample medical evidence to consider.

Workers' Compensation AppealCausationAvascular NecrosisHip InjuryKnee InjuryConflicting Medical OpinionsSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionMedical EvidenceAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Anheuser Busch, Inc.

The court reversed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, finding that the Board failed to provide an adequate rationale for directing the carrier to make a deposit into the Aggregate Trust Fund (ATE). The absence of a stated basis for exercising its discretion, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 27 [2] and 23, rendered the Board's decision insufficient for meaningful appellate review. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further findings consistent with the Court's decision.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionRemittiturAggregate Trust Fund DepositLegal RationaleDiscretionary OrdersJudicial ReviewInsufficient FindingsWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2001

Claim of Pagano v. Anheuser Busch, Inc.

A 55-year-old husband experienced shortness of breath and cardiac arrest after running through his employer's parking lot to be on time for work, leading to his death. Medical reports attributed his death to pre-existing conditions and physical exertion. The claimant, his wife, applied for workers' compensation death benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the application, ruling that the death resulted from an unreasonable and purely personal act, thereby rebutting the Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 presumption. The claimant appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that the act of running was a personal pursuit, not causally related to his employment environment, distinguishing it from cases where injuries arose from parking lot conditions.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal RelationshipPersonal PursuitCardiac ArrestPreexisting ConditionsParking Lot InjuryScope of EmploymentPhysical ExertionPresumption Rebuttal
References
9
Case No. ADJ4665750
Regular
Oct 07, 2011

MARTIN ROJAS vs. ANHEUSER BUSCH, CHARTIS CLAIMS INC.

Here's a summary for a lawyer in four sentences: The applicant sought reconsideration of an order taking the matter off calendar, claiming unspecified alterations were made to a signed Compromise and Release Agreement. The Board dismissed the petition, as reconsideration can only be sought for a final order, decision, or award. An order taking a matter off calendar is not a final order as it does not determine substantive rights or liabilities. The applicant may still raise issues regarding the unapproved Compromise and Release Agreement at trial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and Release AgreementOrder taking off calendarFinal orderSubstantive rights and liabilitiesWCJ approvalTrial levelIn pro perChartis Claims Inc.
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Brewery Workers Local 1059

MISSING

Motion to appealCourt of AppealsAppellate DivisionLeave to appealCosts
References
1
Case No. ADJ2858053 (SAC 322872)
Regular
Jan 22, 2009

RENEE K. ROBLES vs. ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC., SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision to impose a penalty on the defendant for unreasonably delaying medical care, but rescinded the award of attorney's fees as both a percentage of the penalty and pursuant to section 5814.5, allowing them only pursuant to section 5814.5.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAnheuser BuschInc.specialty risk servicesindustrial injuryhead injuryneuropsychiatric symptom complexdiagnostic testingutilization reviewunreasonable delay
References
1
Case No. ADJ8584353 ADJ8661296
Regular
Sep 26, 2016

ROBERTO TAPIA vs. ANHEUSER-BUSCH BEACH CITIES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Roberto Tapia's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award, which was denied. The Board upheld the finding that Tapia sustained work-related injuries and affirmed the temporary and permanent disability indemnity awarded. Tapia's arguments regarding an increased permanent disability rate and entitlement to a job displacement voucher were rejected due to a prior stipulation and failure to follow proper procedure, respectively. Other claims were deemed outside the scope of a reconsideration petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAnheuser-BuschACE American Insurance CompanySedgwick RiversideRoberto TapiaFindings and AwardTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent Disability IndemnitySubsequent Job Displacement BenefitPetition for Reconsideration
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 17 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