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. ADJ9442434
Regular
Oct 05, 2018

JUAN HERNANDEZ vs. TAYLOR FRESH FOODS, dba RIVER RANCH FRESH FOODS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, *Hernandez v. Taylor Fresh Foods*, involves a petition for reconsideration that was dismissed as untimely. The Board found that the petition was filed over 25 days after the administrative law judge's decision, exceeding the jurisdictional deadline. Proof of mailing was insufficient; the petition needed to be *received* by the Board within the statutory period. Consequently, the Board lacked the authority to review the petition's merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)WCAB Rule 10508WCAB Rule 10845(a)WCAB Rule 10392(a)Proof of Mailing InsufficientMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. Hagler
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suarez v. Food Emporium, Inc.

Plaintiff, a job coach for Casita Unida Clubhouse, was injured after slipping on a wet floor while filling in for a transitional employee at defendant Food Emporium. Although he received workers' compensation benefits, plaintiff also commenced a personal injury action against Food Emporium. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was barred because plaintiff was a 'special employee' of Food Emporium. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed. The court determined, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was a special employee due to Food Emporium's control over his work, thus dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarPersonal InjuryControl and DirectionAppellate ReviewDeli DepartmentJob CoachEmployer LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
4
Case No. ADJ8334684
Regular
Sep 09, 2013

ABEL RODRIGUEZ vs. RIVER RANCH FRESH FOODS, LLC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Abel Rodriguez, filed a petition for reconsideration after an adverse ruling. The applicant alleged an industrial injury to his back sustained on December 31, 2011, while employed by River Ranch Fresh Foods, LLC. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the findings of the administrative law judge. The judge found the applicant’s testimony regarding the injury and its reporting to be credible and unrebutted, despite minor inconsistencies that did not materially impact his credibility. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determinations, affirming the denial of reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOrder DenyingCredibilityAOE/COELabor Code Section 3202.5Witness TestimonyImpeachmentMedical EvidenceCausation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2013

National Integrated Group Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equipment Corp.

This case, filed under ERISA, involves the National Integrated Group Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees (Plaintiffs) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from Dunhill Food Equipment, Esquire Mechanical, Geoffrey Thaw, Sanford Associates, and Custom Stainless (Defendants). The core dispute revolved around whether the non-Dunhill defendants were part of a commonly controlled group at the time of Dunhill's withdrawal from the pension plan, and whether Geoffrey Thaw could be held personally liable through veil piercing. The court ruled that Dunhill, Esquire, and Thaw were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, attorney's fees, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, finding Thaw's complete domination and misuse of corporate funds justified piercing the corporate veil. However, the claims against Sanford and Custom Stainless were dismissed, as they were determined to have effectively dissolved prior to the withdrawal date, thus not being members of the controlled group.

ERISA LitigationMPPAA LiabilityPension WithdrawalCorporate Veil PiercingSummary Judgment MotionControlled Group LiabilityCorporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawFiduciary Breach
References
48
Case No. ADJ10651475 ADJ10762532
Regular
Aug 30, 2018

ROSENDA RODRIGUEZ vs. FAIRWAY STAFFING, SOLVIS STAFFING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, FRESH GRILL FOODS, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether Solvis Staffing was a concurrent employer. The initial finding identified Fairway Staffing as the general employer and Fresh Grill Foods as the special employer for applicant's injuries. However, evidence suggests Solvis, as a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), may have also been an employer, creating a potential overlap in coverage. The Board found the record underdeveloped regarding Solvis' PEO role and payroll responsibility, thus remanding the case to the trial level for further investigation.

PEOProfessional Employer Organizationconcurrent employergeneral employerspecial employerJoint Findings and OrderPetition for ReconsiderationWCJReport and Recommendationrescinded
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arcadi v. Nestle Foods Corp.

This class action, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), involved employees and former employees of Nestle Foods Corporation who sought overtime compensation for time spent changing into and out of mandatory uniforms. The defendant, Nestle, moved for summary judgment, arguing that this time was non-compensable based on an established "custom or practice" under their collective bargaining agreement, as permitted by FLSA § 203(o). Plaintiffs contended they never explicitly agreed to forgo such compensation. The court examined prior case law on Section 203(o) and found compelling similarities, noting that the employees effectively bargained away their right to compensation for clothes-changing time in exchange for other concessions. Consequently, the court granted Nestle's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Collective Bargaining AgreementOvertime CompensationUniform PolicyClothes-Changing TimeSummary JudgmentClass Action LawsuitCustom or PracticeLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jacobs v. Dellwood Foods

Claimant, a truck driver for Dellwood Foods, was injured when a company truck ran over his foot while he was walking to the company parking lot after purchasing lunch. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Board awarded compensation, but later rescinded it, finding the accident not to be in the course of employment. Dellwood Foods and its carrier appealed this reversal. The court analyzed whether the accident, occurring on a public sidewalk, fell within the "gray area" of employment, considering the presence of a Dellwood truck as a special hazard and the claimant's normal route. The court found both elements present, concluding the accident was compensable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision that denied compensation and reinstated the original awards made to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentGray Area DoctrineSpecial HazardRoute to WorkPublic Sidewalk InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard ReversalJurisdictional ReviewAccident Compensability
References
7
Case No. 2023-00083 (Index No. 11032/18)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2024

Miolan v. Milmar Food Group, LLC

Alquidania Miolan appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which granted summary judgment to Milmar Food Group, LLC, and Milmar Food Group II, LLC. Miolan sought damages for personal injuries from a slip and fall at a facility operated by the Milmar defendants, where she was employed through a staffing agency. The Milmar defendants successfully argued that Miolan's claims were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, asserting they were her 'special employer.' The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Milmar defendants had established, prima facie, their status as Miolan's special employer. Consequently, the court concluded that Miolan's claims were barred by the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployerSummary JudgmentPersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewExclusivity ProvisionStaffing AgencyOrange CountyPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falkowski v. Krasdale Foods, Inc.

This case involves appeals and a cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County. Commercial Personnel Services, Inc., Commercial Transportation Group, and Commercial Logistics, Inc. appealed parts of the order that granted summary judgment to Krasdale Foods, Inc. on claims of contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. Krasdale Foods, Inc. cross-appealed the granting of the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a negligent entrustment cause of action, and the denial of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order regarding both the appeals and the cross-appeal. This decision upholds the lower court's rulings on contractual indemnification, breach of contract for failure to procure insurance, and the allowance of the amended complaint for negligent entrustment, while denying Krasdale's motion to dismiss the complaint due to unresolved issues of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceNegligent EntrustmentAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawAffirmed Order
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 1999

Tworek v. Mutual Housing Ass'n of New York, Inc.

The injured plaintiff, Cezary Tworek, an employee of Fresh Meadows Painting Corp., d/b/a Fresh Meadows Construction Contractors, suffered personal injuries after falling from a defective A-frame ladder while installing a structural beam. The incident occurred in a building owned by Mutual Housing Association of New York, Inc. (MHANY), which had contracted Fresh Meadows for renovation work. The Supreme Court granted Tworek partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), citing the uncontroverted evidence of the ladder's defective condition. Additionally, MHANY's cross-motion for summary judgment against Fresh Meadows on issues of contractual and common-law indemnification was granted, as MHANY's liability was vicarious, and Fresh Meadows was contractually responsible for safety equipment and controlled the work.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityDefective EquipmentConstruction SiteEmployer Liability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,255 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