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. 2020 NY Slip Op 07642
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Thomas (US Pack Logistics, LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Aston R. Thomas, a claimant, was hired by US Pack Logistics, LLC to deliver blood samples. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Thomas was an employee of US Pack Logistics, LLC, making the company liable for unemployment insurance contributions. US Pack Logistics, LLC appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship, noting that US Pack Logistics, LLC exercised sufficient supervision, direction, and control over significant aspects of Thomas's work, despite Thomas using his own vehicle and not being reimbursed for expenses. The court emphasized that the determination of an employment relationship is a question of fact, and the Board's decision, if supported by substantial evidence, is beyond further judicial review.

Unemployment Insurance LawEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance ContributionsLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardJudiciary Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swift Independent Packing Co. v. District Union Local One

This case involves a dispute between Swift Independent Packing Company and District Union Local One over a labor arbitration award. Swift sought to vacate the award, which was issued by Arbitrator Mario A. Procopio and favored the Union regarding work schedules and overtime pay under a collective bargaining agreement. Swift raised several objections, including alleged arbitrator bias, reliance on facts not in evidence, the award lacking essence from the agreement, and refusal to hear testimony. The District Court, emphasizing its limited scope of review over arbitration awards, denied Swift's motion for summary judgment to vacate the award and granted the Union's motion to confirm it, concluding that no grounds for vacatur existed and that Swift had waived its right to object to the alleged bias.

Labor ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardVacatur of AwardConfirmation of AwardArbitrator BiasJudicial ReviewWaiver DoctrineOvertime PayWork Schedules
References
19
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02032 [228 AD3d 20]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2024

Air-Sea Packing Group, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order denying dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Air-Sea Packing Group, Inc. against Applied Underwriters, Inc. and its affiliates. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants marketed and sold an unlawful workers' compensation insurance program, EquityComp, in violation of New York Insurance Law. The defendants attempted to enforce a forum selection clause mandating litigation in Nebraska, but the court found this clause unenforceable. This decision was based on public policy, as the program violated New York law, and because Nebraska courts had previously deemed New York the more appropriate forum for such disputes. The ruling allows the plaintiff to pursue claims for declaratory relief, equitable rescission, common-law fraud, and violation of General Business Law § 349 in New York.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceForum Selection ClausePublic PolicyInsurance Law ViolationsEquitable RescissionCommon-Law FraudDeceptive PracticesGeneral Business Law § 349Unlawful Reinsurance AgreementRegulatory Oversight
References
52
Case No. ADJ7837378; ADJ7837348 ADJ7981021; ADJ8193223
Regular
Nov 28, 2012

JESUS DOMINGUEZ vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal, rescinding the prior order that took the applicant's discrimination claim off calendar. The Board found the WCJ's reasoning for shelving the claim to be unsubstantiated, as the discrimination allegations and evidence required may be distinct from the applicant's primary injury claims. Consequently, the matters are returned to the trial level for a mandatory settlement conference and further proceedings on the discrimination claim. The Board expressed no opinion on the merits of the discrimination petition itself.

Petition for RemovalLabor Code section 132adiscriminationincreased benefitsoff calendarDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conferencewage discriminationjob assignment discriminationindustrial injuries
References
0
Case No. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. POM 0244323, POM 0260214
Regular
Jan 14, 2008

BERTHA KOCIAN vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMER JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error in the date of injury for applicant's bilateral hand and right knee cumulative trauma claim, changing it to 1980-March 22, 2001. The Board affirmed the original decision denying apportionment of permanent disability to pre-existing conditions, finding defendant failed to provide substantial medical evidence to support their claim. Applicant sustained industrial injury to her bilateral hands and right knee, resulting in 67 percent permanent disability.

KocianClougherty PackingFarmer JohnPOM 0244323POM 0260214Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardssausage stufferindustrial injuryright knee
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hilbert v. Sahlen Packing Co.

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries after being ejected from a bucket truck while removing a utility pole. The plaintiff initiated an action against Sahlen Packing Company, the premises owner, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Sahlen subsequently impleaded Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, the plaintiff's employer. Sahlen appealed an order granting summary judgment to Niagara Mohawk, which resulted in the dismissal of the third-party complaint under the 1996 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Sahlen contended that these amendments violated due process, constituted an unfair taking, impaired contractual obligations, and should not be applied retroactively, also arguing a triable issue of fact existed concerning grave injury. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff did not suffer a "permanent and severe facial disfigurement" as defined by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that the amendments applied as the accident occurred post-enactment and the action commenced in March 1997. Additionally, Sahlen’s constitutional challenges to the amendments were deemed without merit.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryDue Process ChallengeTakings ClauseContract ImpairmentRetroactive ApplicationSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionLabor LawFacial Disfigurement
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01470 [192 AD3d 1315]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

Matter of McLaughlin v. Sahlen Packing Co., Inc.

Kelly A. McLaughlin filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits after her husband died at work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, determining his death was causally related to employment. The employer appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing it had overcome the presumption of Workers' Compensation Law § 21 and that the claimant lacked sufficient evidence of causal relation. The Board denied the employer's application for review due to non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b), specifically failing to provide a complete response to question 15 on form RB-89 regarding the date an objection was interposed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as the employer's response was patently defective.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsApplication for Board ReviewProcedural ComplianceForm RB-89Administrative Review DenialCausally Related EmploymentAppellate ReviewFailure to Complete FormObjection DateDiscretionary Denial
References
13
Case No. ADJ6835597
Regular
Sep 18, 2012

RAYMUNDO LOPEZ vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING COMPANY, LLC., dba FARMER JOHN

This case involves a dispute over a 15% increase or decrease in permanent disability payments under Labor Code section 4658(d). Initially, the judge awarded an increase due to the employer's failure to provide timely notice of alternative work. The employer then amended the award, citing a timely notice, which the applicant contested. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, admitted late evidence of the employer's timely notice and required form, rescinded the judge's vacating order, and reinstated the amended award. However, they modified the award to reflect that the 15% decrease in payments began on the date the offer was made, December 16, 2010.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationAmended Findings and AwardLabor Code section 4658(d)Permanent DisabilityNotice of Offer of Alternative WorkMandatory Settlement ConferenceClerical ErrorMaximum Medical ImprovementAgreed Medical Examiner
References
0
Case No. ADJ1298866 (LAO 0791081) ADJ4098623 (LAO 0855391)
Regular
Feb 10, 2009

MIGUEL NOBOA vs. COUGHERTY PACKING COMPANY

In Noboa v. Cougherty Packing Company, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the applicant's failure to verify the petition, a mandatory requirement under Labor Code section 5902. This procedural defect rendered the petition invalid, leading the WCAB to reject it. The WCAB cited relevant case law supporting its decision to dismiss unverified petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedVerifiedLabor Code section 5902Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJSmith v. Workers' Comp. Appeals BoardLucena v. Workers' Comp. Appeals BoardSignificant Panel DecisionPermit
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 73 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