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. ADJ7035398
Regular
Mar 10, 2010

ANDREW MERLOS vs. COCA COLA ENTERPRISES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Defendant Coca Cola Enterprises petitioned for removal of a WCJ's order requiring an adjuster to appear in person at trial with settlement authority. Defendant argued the adjuster was in Ontario, travel was costly, settlement authority was present at the MSC, and the order denied due process. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the order would not facilitate settlement and the expense was unjustified given the parties' positions. The Board amended the order to allow the adjuster to appear by telephone with settlement authority.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder to AppearSettlement AuthorityMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue ProcessQualified Medical EvaluationPermanent DisabilityTrial AppearanceTelephone Appearance
References
0
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 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. SAC 0297421
Regular
Mar 11, 2008

MICHAEL THAO vs. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, SELECT PERSONNEL SERVICES, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, On Behalf Of LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, Adjusted By CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether Zurich's insurance policy constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), which would absolve CIGA of liability and entitle it to reimbursement from Zurich. The Board returned the case for further proceedings to allow the WCJ to make an explicit finding on this issue, as it was not fully developed or addressed in the original decision. The special employment finding concerning Coca Cola Bottling Company was not reached pending the "other insurance" determination.

Special employmentCIGAother insurancereimbursementliquidationindustrial injurywarehousemanreconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ7315205
Regular
Jul 08, 2010

JOSE H. HERNANDEZ vs. COVE BUILDERS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over the calculation of permanent disability (PD) payments for an applicant with 100% PD. The defendant appealed an order that adjusted PD payments based on a calculation by T. Blair McGowan, arguing that McGowan's calculations incorrectly applied a 15% increase under Labor Code section 4658(d)(2) and improperly included cost of living adjustments (COLA) prior to the date of injury. The Board granted reconsideration, finding the 15% increase inapplicable to 100% PD cases. However, due to the unsettled legal status of COLA calculations following *Duncan v. WCAB*, the Board rescinded the prior order and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the correct PD rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationClerical ErrorPermanent Disability RateLabor Code Section 4658(d)(2)Labor Code Section 4659(c)Cost of Living AdjustmentDate of Injury100% Permanent DisabilityPermanent Partial Disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greece Support Service Employees Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case concerns an appeal regarding the proper application of Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (e) to salary provisions in an expired collective bargaining agreement between an unnamed petitioner and the Greece Central School District. The agreement, from July 1992 to June 1995, included cost-of-living adjustments for salary schedules during its term. After the agreement expired, the District continued existing salary schedules but ceased further cost-of-living adjustments for 1995-1996, prompting the petitioner to file an improper practice charge. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that the agreement did not mandate continued cost-of-living adjustments post-expiration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent CPLR article 78 petition seeking annulment of PERB's determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to PERB's expertise and finding its interpretation that the adjustments were limited to the agreement's term to be reasonable and legally permissible.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSalary AdjustmentCost-of-Living AdjustmentPublic EmployerImproper Practice ChargeCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations BoardJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Statutory Interpretation
References
6
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
Showing 1-10 of 886 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