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. 526783
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Matter of Scott v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

Claimant, Erin Scott, worked for 20 years at a commercial bakery, performing duties involving prolonged standing and repetitive lifting and bending. In August 2011, she experienced back pain but continued working. Her condition progressively worsened over three years, leading her to file an incident report and seek medical treatment in May 2014. She filed a workers' compensation claim for an occupational disease. The carrier contested, arguing it was an accidental injury and time-barred, but the Workers' Compensation Board and the Appellate Division affirmed the decision that it was a causally-related occupational disease, not time-barred, as her job duties exacerbated her underlying back condition.

Occupational DiseaseWorkers' Compensation LawCausationRepetitive Motion InjuryLower Back PainDegenerative Disc DiseaseStatute of LimitationsAppellate DivisionMedical TestimonyBoard Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Yanas v. Bimbo Bakeries

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for wrist pain, including carpal tunnel syndrome and flexor tendonitis, alleging it was an occupational disease from duties at Bimbo Bakeries. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) denied the claim, finding insufficient evidence of repetitive motion and rejecting physician opinions for lacking adequate understanding of the claimant’s work and medical history. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision. On appeal, the court further affirmed, emphasizing that the Board’s factual findings regarding occupational disease, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed, and that the Board is entitled to reject medical evidence deemed inadequately founded.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Strain InjuryMedical CausationSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation AppealBoard DecisionPhysician TestimonyWork ActivitiesCredibility Assessment
References
8
Case No. ADJ6925034
Regular
May 12, 2011

FRANCIS LARA vs. BIMBO BAKERIES USA, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant, Bimbo Bakeries USA, sought reconsideration of an award increasing permanent disability payments by 15%, arguing they were entitled to a 15% decrease. This was based on their claim of offering the injured employee, Francis Lara, regular work. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition because the defendant's offer of work was fatally flawed, being incomplete, unsigned, and not clearly tied to the employee's specific work restrictions at the time. The Board also noted the offer was made before the employee was declared permanent and stationary, further undermining its validity under Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A).

Labor Code section 4658(d)(2)Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A)Permanent and Stationary (P&S) reportPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardindustrial injuryright lower extremitypermanent disabilitymodified workalternative work
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

Riley v. HSBC USA, INC.

Plaintiff Dawn Riley alleged employment discrimination based on race against HSBC USA, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Riley's termination—poor job performance. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment in part to dismiss HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant and denying it as to HSBC Bank USA, National Association, finding material issues of fact regarding pretextual discrimination. Chief Judge William M. Skretny accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the objections, and partially granted/denied the motion for summary judgment, terminating HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant. The case will proceed against HSBC Bank USA, National Association.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPretextDisparate TreatmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawReduction in ForcePerformance Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2010

Pavlov v. Debt Resolvers USA, Inc.

Claimant Dmitri Pavlov sued Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. after the defendant failed to return funds deposited for credit card debt resolution, alleging the defendant's services were ineffective and its fees excessive. The court determined that Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. engaged in "budget planning" as defined by New York law but was not licensed or properly incorporated as a not-for-profit entity for such activities. Consequently, the agreement between Pavlov and Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. was declared illegal and unenforceable. The court ruled in favor of Pavlov, ordering a refund of the deposited funds totaling $1,693.60. Additionally, the defendant was found to have engaged in deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349, leading to an extra $50 award for the claimant, bringing the total judgment to $1,743.60 plus interest.

Small ClaimsDebt ResolutionBudget PlanningUnlicensed ActivityConsumer ProtectionDeceptive Business PracticesContract EnforceabilityNew York LawCredit RepairDebt Settlement
References
2
Case No. ADJ746026 (SJO 0221595) ADJ1315805 (SJO 0221596) ADJ2490198 (SJO 0221597) ADJ1525795 (SJO 0234303)
Regular
Feb 03, 2010

GILBERT GASKA vs. EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL, ACE/USA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCATION

This case involves claims for reimbursement between two insurers covering applicant's industrial injuries. CIGA, representing an insolvent insurer, sought reimbursement from ACE/USA for medical benefits paid. The arbitrator initially awarded CIGA approximately $105,000, later amended to $138,555.15 due to a clerical error. ACE/USA petitioned for reconsideration, arguing CIGA's claim was untimely and improperly based on contribution or subrogation. The Board dismissed CIGA's petition as moot because the corrected award had already been issued. The Board denied ACE/USA's petition, clarifying CIGA's claim was for reimbursement under Insurance Code section 1063.1, not untimely contribution or subrogation, and that ACE/USA was liable due to providing "other insurance" for the same injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAACE/USAFremont Compensation Insurance Companyinsolvencycumulative injuryspecific injuryreimbursementcontribution
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers, International Union of America v. General Baking Co.

The case involves a union, representing production and maintenance employees, suing several bakery companies for an alleged lockout. The union brought the action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, claiming a breach of the no-lockout provisions in their collective bargaining agreements. The alleged lockout occurred when the defendant bakery companies halted operations and sent home the plaintiff union's members, even though there was no direct labor dispute between them. This action was a response to a strike by a separate drivers' union against one of the bakery companies. The court defined a lockout as an employer withholding work to gain a concession *from their employees*. Since the defendants were not in a dispute with the plaintiff union and their actions were not intended to coerce concessions from them, the court ruled that no lockout had occurred. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Labor LawLockoutCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActBreach of ContractNo-lockout ClauseStrikeUnionEmployer-employee Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Harvest Bakery Inc.

This case involves allegations by plaintiffs Maximino Rivera, Miguel Roldan, and Oscar Quintanilla against Harvest Bakery, Inc., Robert Marconti, and Jose Gonzalez. The plaintiffs claim the defendants failed to pay overtime and spread of hours wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The core of the dispute revolves around whether the defendants had a common policy of not paying these wages to their production workers. The Court addresses the defendants' arguments regarding the prematurity and mootness of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, ultimately rejecting them. The Court then proceeds to grant the plaintiffs' motion, certifying a class of current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Harvest Bakery in New York, and appoints class counsel, finding that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation, predominance, and superiority) have been met.

Wage and Hour LawOvertime PaySpread of Hours WagesClass Action CertificationRule 23(b)(3)FLSA ViolationNYLL ViolationCommonalityTypicalityNumerosity
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07628
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2017

Solorzano v. Skanska USA Building, Inc.

Juan Maria Solorzano, an asbestos and lead abatement worker, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction project manager, following a fall from scaffolding. Solorzano alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied his summary judgment motion due to inconsistencies in his deposition testimony regarding the accident's cause. A jury subsequently ruled in favor of Skanska, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that Solorzano failed to establish a prima facie case under the Labor Law provisions, citing his contradictory testimony and the presence of guardrails on the scaffold.

Scaffolding accidentLabor Law violationsSummary judgmentJury verdictAppellate reviewPersonal injuryConstruction site safetyNegligenceProximate causeDeposition inconsistency
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 438 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