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. 2019 NY Slip Op 08664
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2019

Jara v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Rodrigo Jara, an electrician, sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while repairing an electrically operated gate at premises owned by Costco Wholesale Corp. and leased by Westbury Liquors, Inc. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted Jara's motion for summary judgment on liability against Costco under Labor Law § 240 (1) and made various rulings on cross-claims for contractual indemnification between Costco and Westbury. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Jara on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Costco. However, the court modified the order regarding contractual indemnification, denying Westbury's cross-motion to dismiss Costco's indemnification claim and granting Costco's motion for summary judgment on its cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Westbury.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Ladder AccidentConstruction Site SafetyIndemnification ClauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationProperty Owner LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
18
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03378
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2025

Barcia v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Plaintiff Gracie Barcia initiated a personal injury lawsuit following a slip and fall at a Costco warehouse, alleging permanent injuries to her right shoulder, lumbar, and cervical spine. A jury awarded her damages, including for past and future pain and suffering, and future medical expenses. Defendants appealed, moving to set aside the future medical expenses award, while plaintiff sought to increase pain and suffering awards. The Appellate Division found errors, including allowing plaintiff to reopen her case to admit additional medical bills post-resting and improper conflation of cervical and lumbar spine injuries in the life care plan. Consequently, the court deemed the evidence insufficient to support the jury's damages award, modifying the judgment to grant a new trial solely on the issue of damages, and affirming the remainder of the judgment.

Personal InjurySlip and FallDamagesFuture Medical ExpensesPain and SufferingInconsistent VerdictReopening CaseMedical BillsLumbar SpineCervical Spine
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santos v. Costco Wholesale, Inc.

Plaintiff Juan Santos sued Costco Wholesale, Inc. alleging demotion due to national origin discrimination (Hispanic ethnicity) and subsequent retaliatory termination for filing a lawsuit. The court granted Costco's motion for summary judgment on the discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, New York State Executive Law § 296, and New York City Administrative Code § 8-502(a), finding the alleged discriminatory remarks by a supervisor to be "stray remarks" lacking sufficient connection to the adverse employment actions. However, the court denied summary judgment on Santos's retaliation claim, concluding there was enough evidence for a jury to infer that Costco's stated reasons for termination were a pretext for retaliation, citing temporal proximity and potential disparate treatment compared to a previous manager. The motion to dismiss the claim for punitive damages was also denied, allowing that issue to proceed to trial.

Discrimination LawsuitRetaliatory TerminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace-Based DiscriminationSummary Judgment RulingEmployment DemotionPretext EvidenceTemporal ProximitySupervisor's Derogatory RemarksMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Plaintiff Christopher Fox, diagnosed with Tourette's Syndrome and OCD, sued his employer, Costco Wholesale Corp., alleging disability discrimination (hostile work environment, disparate treatment, failure to accommodate) and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Fox claimed various incidents of harassment, unfair treatment, and denied accommodations at Costco's Holbrook warehouse. These included reprimands, disciplinary actions following member complaints, transfer to a different role, alleged "hut-hut-hike" comments from co-workers, and issues with breaks. Fox also initiated an internal complaint and later went on indefinite medical leave due to an anxiety attack. The court found that Fox failed to present a prima facie case for any of his discrimination or retaliation claims, concluding that the alleged incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, did not constitute adverse employment actions, and that reasonable accommodations were provided when requested. Consequently, the court granted Costco's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Fox's claims.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York State Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentDisparate TreatmentFailure to AccommodateRetaliationSummary JudgmentTourette's Syndrome
References
53
Case No. ADJ803403, ADJ3871020
Regular
Nov 03, 2010

GERALD BROWN vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

The Appeals Board denied Costco's petition for removal, finding their arguments lacked merit. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order to develop the medical record for permanent disability rating under the 1997 PDRS, as this was consistent with prior Board decisions. Costco's claims of prejudice and due process violations were rejected, as the order was interim and did not cause irreparable harm. The Board emphasized that reconsideration would be available after the WCJ issues final decisions.

Removal PetitionPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleAgreed Medical ExaminerTemporary Disability IndemnityCredit for OverpaymentCausation IssuesApportionmentSubstantial Medical EvidenceFactors of DisabilityLabor Code Section 4660(d)
References
3
Case No. ADJ2954772
Regular
May 22, 2012

AURELIO GUERRERO vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a judge's decision that denied penalties, sanctions, and costs. The Board found that Costco Wholesale unreasonably delayed payment of a prior vocational rehabilitation fee award. Consequently, Costco was ordered to pay applicant's attorney interest on the overdue fee, a 25% penalty for the delay, and an attorney's fee for enforcing the award.

Labor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5814.5unreasonable delayvocational rehabilitation feesinterestpenaltyattorney's feeAppeals Boardreconsiderationen banc decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ118892 (VNO 0442877) ADJ1041834 (VNO 0436039)
Regular

TAMARA O'KEEFE vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE, INC.

This order denies Costco Wholesale's petition for reconsideration in the workers' compensation case of Tamara O'Keefe. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) adopted the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) as its reasoning for denial. The specific grounds for denial are detailed within the WCJ's report, which is incorporated by reference. Therefore, the WCAB has upheld the prior decision and denied the employer's request for review.

ADJ118892VNO 0442877ADJ1041834VNO 0436039O'KeefeCostco WholesaleSedgwick CMSDeny ReconsiderationWCJ ReportAppeals Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses post-trial motions in a trademark infringement and counterfeiting case brought by Tiffany against Costco. The Court granted summary judgment finding Costco liable for using "Tiffany" as a standalone term on engagement ring signage. Following a jury trial on monetary recovery, the Court, treating the jury's profit verdict as advisory, upheld a $3.7 million profit award, trebled it to $11.1 million due to Costco's willful infringement, and affirmed an $8.25 million punitive damages award. The Court also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Costco from using the "Tiffany" mark as a standalone term for non-Tiffany products.

Trademark InfringementTrademark CounterfeitingLanham ActPunitive DamagesProfits AccountingInjunctionSouthern District of New YorkJury Verdict AdvisoryWillful InfringementTreble Damages
References
20
Case No. ADJ629894 (SAL0121123) ADJ7361756
Regular
Jan 31, 2012

SANDRA MARTINEZ vs. COSTCO WHOLESALE, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By SEDGWICK CMS

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision addresses two consolidated cases for applicant Sandra Martinez against Costco Wholesale. The Board affirmed the initial awards of permanent disability for injuries to the left knee, foot, lumbar spine, and psyche (2007) and the neck (2010). However, the Board amended the award to rescind reimbursement for self-procured medical treatment and clarified the EDD reimbursement and attorney fee divisions. Specifically, the payment of attorney fees for both cases was deferred pending resolution between current and former counsel, with jurisdiction reserved for disputes.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityAttorney FeesEDD ReimbursementSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentAgreed Medical ExaminerCredibility Findings
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Clumber Transportation Corp.

Clumber Transportation Corporation and Poppy Cab Corporation appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found both corporations to be employers, subject to workers’ compensation insurance requirements, because they leased taxicab medallions and, in Clumber's case, had more than one corporate officer prior to January 1, 1987. The corporations challenged the statutory employment relationship and the Board Chairman's authority to delegate penalty imposition. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2, finding that medallion leases created a statutory employment relationship. It also upheld the Board's finding regarding Clumber's multiple officers and the Chairman's delegation authority. However, the court modified the penalty against Poppy Cab Corporation, reducing it from $7,200 to $6,000, while affirming the decision against Clumber.

Workers Compensation LawTaxicab MedallionEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory EmploymentCorporate OfficersInsurance RequirementDelegation of AuthorityAdministrative PenaltiesAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,638 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