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

Buffalo Civic Auto Ramps, Inc. v. Serio

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the Superintendent of Insurance, dated January 29, 2003, which reclassified parking ramp cashiers of Buffalo Civic Auto Ramps, Inc. (BCAR) from clerical "office employees" (Code 8810) to "automobile parking lot and drivers" (Code 8392) for workers’ compensation purposes. BCAR challenged this reclassification, arguing it was unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious, as their cashiers' duties were comparable to other clerical workers classified under Code 8810. The court found the Superintendent's determination lacked substantial evidence, noting no proof of increased hazard for BCAR cashiers compared to pari-mutuel clerks or bus terminal cashiers. The court also deemed the determination arbitrary and capricious due to inconsistent treatment of similarly situated cashiers. Consequently, the court vacated and annulled the Superintendent's determination and remanded the matter to the New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board for further proceedings.

ReclassificationWorkers' Compensation InsuranceAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceArbitrary and CapriciousInsurance LawClerical ClassificationParking Garage Industry
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vam Check Cashing Corp. v. Federal Insurance

Vam Check Cashing Corporation (VAM) sued Federal Insurance Company after experiencing a $120,000 loss due to an elaborate fraud scheme. Imposters tricked a cashier at VAM's Pine Check Cashing location into handing over the money. Federal denied VAM's claim, asserting the incident did not meet the policy's definition of 'Robbery,' specifically concerning the terms 'overt felonious act' and 'cognizance.' The court examined the insurance policy's ambiguous language, particularly the meanings of 'overt' and 'cognizance.' It ruled that the cashier did not need to recognize the act as criminal for coverage, only that the physical act of transferring money occurred in her presence and control. The court found Federal's interpretation would defeat the policy's purpose of protecting check cashing businesses from fraud. Consequently, VAM's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Federal's motion was denied.

Insurance Policy InterpretationRobbery DefinitionSummary JudgmentContract AmbiguityFraud SchemeCheck Cashing BusinessOn Premises ClauseOvert Felonious ActCognizance RequirementNew York Law
References
13
Case No. ADJ7695211
Regular
Jun 18, 2019

LESLIE LAFLAM vs. TOWER ENERGY GROUP, AMERICAN RISK

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved Leslie Laflam's claim against Tower Energy Group for injuries sustained in 2010. The Board granted Laflam's petition for reconsideration, affirming the original decision but amending the findings of fact. The amendment clarified that Laflam's injuries, sustained while working as a cashier and stocker, affected her neck, lumbar spine, psyche, shoulders, and gastrointestinal system. The Board corrected a clerical error itself rather than returning the matter to the judge.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportclerical erroraffirm decisionamend decisioninjurycashierstockerneck injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ7219831
Regular
Aug 27, 2012

LORENA MARQUEZ vs. CARL'S JR.; TRAVELERS INSURANCE

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for a psychiatric injury sustained by Lorena Marquez while employed as a cashier at Carl's Jr. The applicant sought reconsideration of the denial of temporary disability benefits, arguing she was partially disabled and her resignation was not a voluntary choice. The defendant insurer sought reconsideration regarding their affirmative defense that the injury stemmed from lawful personnel actions, but failed to adequately present this argument. Both petitions for reconsideration were denied, upholding the original award of 23% permanent disability and future medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedPsyche InjuryTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityPQMELabor Code Section 3208.3(h)Affirmative DefensePersonnel ActionDeemed Denied
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1987

People v. Gaines

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment convicting the defendant of third-degree robbery. The defendant had entered a grocery store, threatened the cashier with what appeared to be a hand grenade, and claimed to have committed a homicide, stealing $15 before fleeing. He was later apprehended, and the inoperable grenade was recovered. The court ruled that the homicide threat merely enhanced the seriousness of the robbery threat, not constituting evidence of an uncharged crime. Additionally, the defendant's claim regarding courtroom closure during summation was not preserved for appellate review.

RobberyThird Degree RobberySecond Felony OffenderHand Grenade ThreatUncharged Crime EvidenceAppellate ReviewCourtroom ClosureCriminal Procedure LawAffirmance
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1997

In re the Claim of Huggins

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which had disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The Board found that the claimant was discharged from his employment at a medical center for repeatedly taking food from the facility’s cafeteria, a violation of the employer’s policy against theft. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that an employee's dishonesty or failure to comply with established employer policies constitutes disqualifying misconduct. The court also upheld the Board's right to credit the testimony of the cafeteria cashier over the claimant's general denial of wrongdoing.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductTheftEmployer Policy ViolationEmployee TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAdministrative Law JudgeUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
3
Case No. ADJ10231800
Regular
Apr 30, 2018

Patricia Castro vs. STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the trial judge's findings, remanding the case for further development of the record. The applicant claims industrial cumulative trauma injury to her left knee, left thumb, right knee, left arm, and left wrist. The medical expert, Dr. Anderson, initially found no cumulative trauma from the applicant's work with the defendant school district but later opined it was possible from concurrent work as a cashier. The Board found it unclear why the applicant's job with the defendant, which also involved standing and hand use, would not also support a cumulative trauma claim, necessitating further investigation.

Cumulative traumaPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactIndustrial injuryMedical evidencePanel Qualified Medical EvaluationDepositionApportionmentSupplemental ReportFurther development of the record
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1997

Willis v. Auxiliary Services Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision ruling a claimant ineligible for benefits after April 1, 1996. The claimant, a cook who sustained a back injury, declined a light-duty cashier position due to childcare issues, even though she was not physically restricted from the role. The employer re-offered the position, but she did not respond and subsequently enrolled in business classes. The Board concluded that her failure to accept the light-duty work constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market.

Voluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketLight Duty WorkChildcare IssuesReduced EarningsBack InjuryAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceEligibility for BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Stewart v. P & C Food Markets, Inc.

A claimant, who worked as a cashier, developed persistent leg and hip pain diagnosed as a slipped femoral epiphysis requiring surgery in August 1990. Following surgery, he allegedly developed chronic low back pain and filed for workers' compensation benefits. While surgeons opined that neither the slipped hip nor back pain were work-related, chiropractors testified otherwise. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled in the claimant's favor, finding a causal relationship for both conditions. The employer and its insurer appealed, raising an issue about the chiropractors' qualifications which was deemed not properly preserved. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence for the causal relationship.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipSlipped Femoral EpiphysisBack PainChiropractor TestimonyMedical Expert QualificationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEmployer AppealInsurance Carrier
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2000

Claim of Elwood v. K-Mart Corp.

In April 1992, the claimant suffered a work-related back injury requiring surgery. After returning to work, her receptionist position was eliminated, and she was offered a cashier role that required prolonged standing, which exacerbated her back and leg pain. Consequently, the claimant chose to retire in February 1997 and applied for workers' compensation benefits. The employer contested this, arguing a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. However, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found a causal connection between her disability and her decision to retire, awarding benefits. The appellate court affirmed, stating that a withdrawal from the labor market is not voluntary if disability caused or contributed to retirement, and found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketWork-Related InjuryDisability RetirementCausal ConnectionMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewBack InjuryEmployment TerminationCashier Position
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 13 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