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

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc. v. Soft Drink & Brewery Workers Union, Local 812

The case involves a dispute between Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, the plaintiff, and the Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, the defendant. The Union sought arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, alleging that Coca-Cola failed to provide sufficient product to its route sales force, thereby limiting their potential incentive earnings between August 1991 and July 1993. Coca-Cola subsequently filed a lawsuit under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act to enjoin the arbitration, arguing that the dispute encroached upon management's business conduct and risked the disclosure of trade secrets. Presiding Judge Vincent L. Broderick denied Coca-Cola's motion for summary judgment, allowing the arbitration to proceed. The court, however, retained jurisdiction to intervene if the arbitration threatened to interfere with Coca-Cola's management of business processes or endanger its trade secrets.

Collective BargainingArbitrationTaft-Hartley ActSummary JudgmentLabor DisputeIncentive PayTrade SecretsManagement RightsFederal JurisdictionUnion Grievance
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parisi v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York

Richard Parisi, a former route deliveryman for Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL). Parisi claimed his 1995 on-the-job knee injury, for which he received Workers' Compensation, left him permanently disabled from his previous role but qualified for other positions within the company. He alleged Coca-Cola failed to provide reasonable accommodation by not reassigning him. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Parisi failed to establish a prima facie case under the ADA, that his claims were barred by the New York State Workers’ Compensation Statute, and by a mandatory arbitration clause. The Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that Parisi failed to adequately plead a 'disability' within the meaning of the ADA, as his impairment only disqualified him from a narrow range of jobs. Furthermore, the Court determined that the employer had no general duty to transfer a disabled employee to a different position without a contractual right or established policy for such transfers, thus failing the 'reasonable accommodation' element of his claim.

Americans with Disabilities ActEmployment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeReasonable AccommodationDisability DefinitionMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Workers' Compensation StatuteOtherwise Qualified IndividualMajor Life Activity
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Board of Estimate

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding initiated by The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc. against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York and other city entities, along with Con-Agg Recycling Corp. Coca-Cola challenged the Board of Estimate's approval of Con-Agg's concrete recycling business in The Bronx and an amendment to the urban renewal plan, alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The core issue was whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) or the Board of Estimate was the proper 'lead agency' responsible for assessing the environmental impact. The trial court and Appellate Division found that DEP's issuance of a conditional negative declaration, rather than the Board of Estimate making the final environmental policy decision, violated SEQRA. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the 'lead agency' with principal responsibility for approving an action must also determine its significant environmental effect, and Mayoral Executive Order No. 91 was invalidly applied to the extent it diminished this responsibility.

Environmental ReviewSEQRALead AgencyConditional Negative DeclarationUrban Renewal PlanArticle 78 ProceedingGovernmental Decision MakingEnvironmental Impact StatementPolicy DecisionMayoral Executive Order No. 91
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 1994

Conatser v. Clarksville Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

Eric Conatser, an employee of The Clarksville Coca-Cola Bottling Company, sustained a work-related injury and was subsequently terminated three days after returning to work. Conatser filed a suit for retaliatory discharge, alleging his termination was due to his workers' compensation claim. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals granted a directed verdict in favor of the employer, finding no prima facie case of retaliation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed these decisions, ruling that proximity in time between a workers' compensation claim and termination, without additional evidence of satisfactory job performance, is insufficient to establish a causal link for retaliatory discharge. The Court found no material evidence that the workers' compensation claim was a substantial factor in the employer's decision to terminate employment.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensationDirected verdictPrima facie caseEmployment-at-willCausal relationshipBurden of proofJob performanceAppellate reviewWrongful termination
References
9
Case No. 2021-05-0570
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2023

Lentz, Michael v. Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc., from a compensation order finding employee Michael Lentz's claim compensable for a right shoulder injury. Lentz sought unauthorized medical treatment, including surgery, after the employer disputed the causation and benefits. The trial court determined the injury was compensable and awarded disability benefits but denied reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses. The Appeals Board affirmed the compensability and disability benefits, but reversed the trial court's denial of stipulated medical expenses, modifying the compensation order to include their reimbursement.

Workers' Compensation AppealShoulder InjuryMedical CausationUnauthorized Medical TreatmentDisability BenefitsMedical ExpensesPanel PhysicianRebuttable PresumptionExpert Medical OpinionOsteoarthritis
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2004

Claim of Provenzano v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co.

A claimant sought workers’ compensation death benefits after her husband, a quality control technician and union shop steward for Pepsi Cola Bottling Company, died at work. The decedent was called to work late one evening to address a dispute involving an employee working out of title. After a heated discussion with his supervisor, the decedent collapsed and died. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board both found that the death was work-related, which was affirmed on appeal. Medical testimony from an internal medicine specialist attributed the death to a heart attack or cardiac arrhythmia brought on by work-related stress, which the Board credited. The appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that the death arose out of and in the course of employment and that the stress precipitated the death.

Death BenefitsWork-Related DeathCardiac EventStress-Induced IllnessUnion ActivityCausation Medical OpinionAppellate AffirmationCourse of EmploymentEmployer ResponsibilityWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1995

Allen v. Blum

This case involves an appeal in two related actions seeking damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff, Leon Allen, an employee of Coca Cola Bottling Company, was injured by a moving service van after installing a replacement transmission. Defendants Brian Pechaska, as President of New York Coca Cola Distributors Association, and New York Coca Cola Distributors Association, appealed a Supreme Court order that denied their motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the complaint based on their vicarious liability under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting the appellants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against them. The court reasoned that since Coca Cola Bottling and supervisor Michael Parise were immune from suit under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), the appellants could not be held vicariously liable as owners of the service van.

Personal InjuryVicarious LiabilityVehicle and Traffic LawWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive RemedyOwner LiabilityAutomobile AccidentWorkplace Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abramo v. Pepsi-Cola Buffalo Bottling Co.

Plaintiff Anthony A. Abramo was injured while working at a Pepsi-Cola plant, suffering a fractured skull and burns after an unwitnessed fall from a stepladder. Pepsi-Cola had contracted with P.A.T. Construction, Inc. for remodeling, and P.A.T. subcontracted with C & C Plumbing, Inc. (Abramo's employer) and Ferguson Electric Construction Co., Inc. The accident occurred while Abramo was installing brackets, and later, a co-worker received an electric shock from a defective light fixture in the same room. Supreme Court initially granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against Pepsi-Cola and P.A.T., but this order was unanimously reversed on appeal due to bona fide issues of fact regarding the accident's cause. The court also properly granted conditional judgments of common-law and contractual indemnification in favor of P.A.T. against C & C.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentUnwitnessed AccidentElectric ShockLadder FallIndemnificationSubcontractor Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palacios v. THE COCA-COLA CO.

Guatemalan labor activists and their family members, including José Armando Palacios and José Alberto Vicente Chavez, sued The Coca-Cola Company and unnamed agents in New York, alleging violence and human rights abuses in Guatemala related to union activities at an affiliated plant. Coca-Cola moved to dismiss the action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court granted the motion, determining that Guatemala was an available and adequate alternative forum. The decision emphasized the concentration of evidence in Guatemala, the local interest in resolving the dispute, and the likely application of Guatemalan law, despite concerns raised by plaintiffs regarding the Guatemalan judicial system and their safety.

Forum non conveniensInternational litigationGuatemalan labor disputeHuman rights abusesCorporate social responsibilityTort claimsChoice of lawJudicial discretionPrivate interest factorsPublic interest factors
References
45
Case No. 2018-06-0301
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2019

Griffin, Norman v Coca-Cola Bottling Company

The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Nashville issued a Compensation Hearing Order regarding Norman Griffin's claim against Coca-Cola Bottling Company. Mr. Griffin sustained a neck injury, and despite medical restrictions from Dr. James Fish, his employer failed to provide adequate accommodation upon his return to work, leading to his resignation. The Court found Mr. Griffin's resignation reasonable and Coca-Cola's employment offer not meaningful. Consequently, Mr. Griffin was awarded additional permanent partial disability benefits and future medical benefits, while his attorney was ordered to pay a fee for an untimely discovery response.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical RestrictionsResignationMeaningful Return to WorkAccommodationCervical FusionWage LossAttorney's FeesMotion to Compel
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 90 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