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. ADJ2178733 (BAK 0154115)
Regular
May 27, 2014

LIDIA BUENO vs. RAVILA FARM LABOR SERVICES, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claimant, Biocare RX Specialty Pharmacy, whose lien was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). Biocare argued the dismissal was erroneous because it had not yet filed a lien. The WCAB granted reconsideration, rescinding the dismissal order. The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to dismiss a lien that had not been filed and that Biocare was improperly dismissed for non-appearance at a lien conference for which it received no notice.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder to Dismiss LiensWCJBiocare RX Specialty PharmacyElite Lien Servicesjurisdictionfiled lienLabor Code section 4903.5industrial injury
References
0
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03519
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

Matter of Reyes Bonilla v. XL Specialty Ins.

Claimants Jose Reyes Bonilla and Marvin Reyes Bonilla, carpenters, were involved in a motor vehicle accident while commuting to a job site in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, in an employer-provided van. They filed workers' compensation claims, which were established against XL Specialty Insurance by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ). XL Specialty appealed, arguing its policy did not cover commuting injuries and that it was not the proper carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decisions, finding XL Specialty failed to preserve its challenge to being the carrier and that the employer's responsibility for transportation made the injuries compensable. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, agreeing that the issue was unpreserved and that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment due to the employer's control over the conveyance.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment InjuriesCommuting AccidentEmployer Provided TransportationWrap-up PolicyInsurance Coverage DisputeCarrier LiabilityIssue PreservationAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. Specialty Services, Inc.

Claimant, a construction foreman for Specialty Services, Inc., was injured while performing work for a church in Pennsylvania. Although Specialty filed a work-related accident report and its carrier began paying benefits, the carrier filed a notice of controversy over seven months after the Workers' Compensation Board indexed the case, exceeding the 25-day limit. The carrier argued that the late filing was due to surprise, mistake, and newly discovered evidence regarding the church's involvement, which claimant and Specialty allegedly failed to disclose. The Workers' Compensation Board refused to excuse the late filing, finding the carrier failed to demonstrate good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the carrier had ample time to investigate and that belatedly obtained evidence is not a sufficient ground to excuse a late filing.

Workers' CompensationLate Notice of ControversyTimely FilingEmployer-Employee RelationshipInsurance CarrierGood CausePleading BarAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. ADJ3408070
Regular
Dec 29, 2011

CARLOS LOPEZ vs. COBBLESTONE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary for a lawyer: Biocare RX Specialty Pharmacy sought reconsideration of a lien dismissal, arguing a representative was available by phone for trial. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition as untimely. The dismissal order was issued June 13, 2011, and served June 22, 2011, giving the lien claimant 25 days to file for reconsideration. The petition was filed on October 31, 2011, exceeding the jurisdictional deadline.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCJBiocare RX Specialty PharmacyLabor Code section 5903Code of Civ. Proc.section 1013
References
2
Case No. ADJ7040878
Regular
Dec 28, 2011

PATRICIA FINKS vs. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, PETROLEUM CASUALTY COMPANY C/O EXXON MOBIL RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves Biocare RX Specialty Pharmacy's untimely petition for reconsideration of an order disallowing their lien claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition because it was filed on October 31, 2011, well past the jurisdictional deadline of twenty-five days from the August 11, 2011 service of the original order. The WCAB emphasized that petitions for reconsideration are deemed filed upon receipt, not mailing, and that the time limit is jurisdictional. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the power to grant the untimely petition.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Disallowing LienLien ClaimantWCJuntimely petitionjurisdictional time limitLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013WCAB Rule 10507
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. v. Morganstern

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. sued its former sales executive, Max Morganstern, for unfair competition and breach of a non-compete agreement after he joined a competitor, Summit Pharmacy, Inc., and solicited Innoviant's customer referral sources. Innoviant sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Morganstern from contacting 114 key New York referral sources. The court found Innoviant unlikely to succeed on its breach of contract claim because the employment agreement was deemed unenforceable due to a later signed document. However, the court found Innoviant likely to succeed on its unfair competition claim, as Morganstern misappropriated a list of potential referral sources and business cards. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, restraining Morganstern from contacting the specified referral sources until February 24, 2006, conditioned on Innoviant posting a $100,000 security bond.

Preliminary InjunctionUnfair CompetitionBreach of ContractNon-compete ClauseTrade SecretsCustomer ListsConfidential InformationEmployment AgreementSales ExecutiveReferral Sources
References
50
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03820 [195 AD3d 776]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2021

21st Century Pharmacy v. American Intl. Group

21st Century Pharmacy appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed its declaratory judgment action against American International Group (AIG) and the New York Workers' Compensation Board (WCB). The pharmacy sought a declaration that it could pursue payment for prescription bills in a plenary court proceeding, rather than solely through the WCB, and also sought a monetary judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, asserting the WCB had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, clarifying that while the WCB holds primary jurisdiction over Workers' Compensation Law applicability, it does not possess exclusive jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for a determination on the merits of AIG's motion to dismiss.

Declaratory JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionExclusive JurisdictionPrescription BillsAppellate ProcedureRemittalPharmacy RightsCourt Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anani v. CVS RX SERVICES, INC.

Salah Anani, a former pharmacist, sued CVS RX Services, Inc. alleging unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Anani, classified as a bi-weekly salaried pharmacist, received a base salary and additional premium pay for hours exceeding 44 per week. He contended he was misclassified as exempt and was entitled to time-and-a-half overtime. CVS argued Anani was properly exempt under the FLSA's professional and highly compensated employee provisions. The court determined Anani met the 'learned professional' duties test and the central issue was the salary basis test. The court concluded that Anani's compensation scheme, which included a guaranteed base salary and premium pay for additional hours, adhered to FLSA salary basis requirements and associated regulations. Consequently, the court granted CVS's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing Anani's complaint.

FLSA exemptionOvertime compensationSalary basis testHighly compensated employee exemptionPharmacist exemptionProfessional employeeSummary judgmentNew York Labor LawPremium payWage and hour
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Ndola Pharmacy Corp.

Plaintiff Siew Lian Rivera brought an action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law, Human Rights Law, Administrative Code, and common law claims against Ndola Pharmacy Corp. and several individuals. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the FLSA and Labor Law claims and to dismiss state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied partial summary judgment, finding Rivera's testimony sufficient for overtime claims despite credibility questions. Supplemental jurisdiction was retained for the sexual harassment claim against N. Patel due to its connection to wage allegations, but other state law claims were dismissed without prejudice for lacking a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim. Additionally, certain motions related to amending the answer regarding the plaintiff's standing due to bankruptcy were granted in part and denied in part.

FLSAOvertime CompensationWage ClaimsSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentSupplemental JurisdictionBankruptcy EstateCredibility of WitnessEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamarr-Arruz v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

This case involves claims of a hostile work environment and retaliation brought by Zaire Lamarr-Arruz and Mominna Ansoralli against CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Plaintiffs allege racial profiling of customers and a barrage of racial slurs by supervisors and managers, violating 42 U.S.C. §1981, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Lamarr-Arruz also filed a retaliation claim, alleging delayed return from medical leave and termination due to his complaints. CVS sought summary judgment, denying the allegations and arguing the lack of supervisory responsibility for some alleged harassers and the availability of their anti-harassment policy. The court denied CVS's motions for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding the existence of a hostile work environment for Ansoralli, the imputation of hostile conduct to CVS, and Lamarr-Arruz's retaliation claim, including the pretextual nature of his termination reasons.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawCivil Rights Act of 1991New York Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawEmployer LiabilitySupervisory Liability
References
60
Showing 1-10 of 548 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