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. 2021 NY Slip Op 02208 [193 AD3d 1216]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Canela (Sky Chefs, Inc.)

Rolando Canela, a caterer, sustained a work-related back injury in May 2018. He was awarded temporary partial disability benefits, but the employer and its carrier (appellants) challenged the Workers' Compensation Board's finding that he maintained attachment to the labor market. Appellants argued Canela refused a light-duty offer and had an inadequate independent job search. The Board, however, found no specific light-duty offer and deemed his job search, involving about two dozen online applications, sufficiently diligent. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported its determination that Canela did not reject a suitable work offer and demonstrated an attachment to the labor market.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentLight-Duty WorkVoluntary WithdrawalSubstantial EvidenceJob SearchDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC

The case concerns a putative class action brought by delivery drivers against several defendants, including Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC, for alleged violations of Labor Law article 6 regarding wage and benefit payments. The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, categorizing the drivers as independent contractors. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship due to the defendants' control over their work. The court also determined that the documentary evidence provided by the defendants was insufficient to conclusively prove the drivers were independent contractors, thus denying the motions to dismiss.

Class ActionLabor LawWage and HourEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewDegree of ControlDelivery DriversWorkers' Rights
References
26
Case No. ADJ8071249
Regular
Apr 30, 2013

Edward Camacho vs. CHEF'S FANCY, SENTINEL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns Edward Camacho's workers' compensation claim against Chef's Fancy and Sentinel Insurance. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the original decision. The Board affirmed the prior decision, except it amended the finding of fact to specify injury AOE/COE to the right knee and right shoulder. The issue of injury AOE/COE to the left knee and left shoulder was deferred and ordered off calendar.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationAOE/COEInjury arising out of and in the course of employmentDishwasherRight knee injuryRight shoulder injuryDeferred issue
References
0
Case No. ADJ1010124 (MON 0336772)
Regular
Jan 23, 2014

ANA MENDOZA vs. LSG SKY CHEFS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by a lien claimant in Ana Mendoza's workers' compensation claim against LSG Sky Chefs, Inc. and Liberty Mutual. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition. The dismissal was based solely on the administrative law judge's report, which found the petition was not filed in a timely manner. Therefore, the WCAB adopted this reasoning to dismiss the lien claimant's appeal.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedTimelyLien ClaimantWCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLSG Sky ChefsLiberty MutualAna Mendoza
References
0
Case No. ADJ2872928 (LBO 0355771) ADJ3784596 (LAO 0865396)
Regular
Aug 26, 2013

MARIA ROSALES vs. REPUBLIC MASTER CHEFS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, involving applicant Maria Rosales and defendants Republic Master Chefs/State Compensation Insurance Fund, resulted in the dismissal of the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation. While the judge recommended denial, the Board's order is specifically to dismiss the petition. The dismissal was effective August 26, 2013.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationRepublic Master ChefsState Compensation Insurance FundMaria RosalesADJ2872928ADJ3784596
References
0
Case No. MON 0299702 MON 0313489
Regular
Oct 15, 2007

REINA RIVERA vs. LSG SKY CHEFS, INC, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, LSG Sky Chefs, Inc., and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the petition to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to issue a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLSG Sky ChefsInc.Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.Case NumberDecision After ReconsiderationReconsideration UnitStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual Issues
References
0
Case No. MON 0299702 MON 0313489
Regular
Oct 15, 2007

REINA RIVERA vs. LSG SKY CHEFS, INC, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant, LSG Sky Chefs, Inc., filed a petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition, not on the merits, but to allow further study of the factual and legal issues. This means the original decision is effectively on hold pending further review and potential additional proceedings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationLSG SKY CHEFSINCLIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.MON 0299702MON 0313489Opinion and OrderReconsideration GrantedStatutory Time Constraints
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Giudi v. New Paltz Fire Department

The Workers' Compensation Board's finding that the claimant remains unable to perform their prior employment duties as a chef, or those of a reasonable substitute, due to cognitive impairments, is supported by substantial evidence. This evidence includes the claimant's testimony and the opinion of a clinical neuropsychologist, who stated that the cognitive impairments prevent the claimant from working as a chef or military police officer. The Board's crediting of this evidence, which justified the finding of over 75% earning capacity loss, was upheld. The employer's argument that the Board applied an incorrect legal standard was rejected. The decision is affirmed.

cognitive impairmentsearning capacity lossdisability benefitsneuropsychologyoccupational injurymedical opinionappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceworkers' compensation lawemployment duties
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Luna v. American Airlines

Plaintiff Monserrate Luna sued American Airlines and LSG Sky Chefs for alleged injuries from a contaminated meal. Defendants impleaded Overhill Farms, Inc., the meal supplier, for indemnification. Following a jury verdict in favor of the defendants in the primary lawsuit, the court addressed the third-party indemnification claims. The court dismissed all common-law indemnification claims and LSG Sky Chefs' contractual indemnification claim. However, American Airlines' contractual indemnification claim against Overhill Farms, Inc. was granted, limited to expenses incurred in defending against Luna's initial lawsuit, and excluding costs for pursuing indemnification from Overhill Farms itself.

IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationThird-Party ClaimsAirline LiabilityProduct LiabilityFood ContaminationAttorney's FeesLitigation ExpensesSubrogation
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2005

Sciola v. Quattro Piu, Inc.

Plaintiff Angelo Sciola, a chef, sued his employer, Quattro Piu, alleging unlawful termination based on age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Sciola claimed age-related remarks from his supervisor and being replaced by a younger chef after being fired at age 63. Quattro Piu moved for summary judgment, citing Sciola's alleged alcohol consumption, mishandling of a charity event, and poor food quality. The court denied the motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Sciola's performance, the alleged discriminatory remarks by his supervisor, and the supervisor's influence on the termination decision, all of which require resolution at trial.

Age DiscriminationUnlawful TerminationADEANYSHRLSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkSame Actor InferenceEmployment Law
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 39 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