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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ADJ4612779 (RDG 0113043), ADJ1750033 (RDG 0129403), ADJ4527180 (RDG 0129951)
Regular
Apr 17, 2014

JUAN VILLALOBOS vs. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case involves appeals regarding the statute of limitations for applicant Juan Villalobos's workers' compensation claims against Coca Cola Bottling Company. The Board affirmed the lower judge's decision that claims ADJ4527180 and ADJ1750033 were not barred by the statute of limitations. This was based on the employer's failure to provide proper notice of potential benefits, which tolled the statute, and the employer's inability to prove the applicant had actual knowledge of his rights. The Board found the employer's amended petitions for reconsideration procedurally acceptable, but ultimately affirmed the original findings on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenStatute of LimitationsCumulative InjuryPetition to StrikeVerified PetitionActual KnowledgeLabor Code Section 5401(a)Tolling
References
7
Case No. ADJ821366 (OAK 0323506) ADJ7173636
Regular
Jun 01, 2010

ANTHONY REYNOLDS vs. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant Coca-Cola Bottling Company sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding applicant Anthony Reynolds' industrial injuries. The WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded the original decision, returning the matter for further proceedings. This action was primarily to address the defendant's contention that the WCJ erred in determining apportionment of permanent disability under Labor Code section 4664. The WCAB clarified that the defendant bears the burden of proving the extent of overlap between a prior permanent disability award and the current injury. The WCAB also instructed the WCJ to correct a clerical error regarding the defendant's self-insured status.

Labor Code section 4664ApportionmentWhole Person ImpairmentPermissibly Self-InsuredCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerOld Rating ScheduleNew Rating ScheduleBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prince v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New York, Inc.

Plaintiff Stephanie Prince filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc., Michael Drake, and Leonard Erlanger, alleging violations of Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law due to sexual harassment and retaliation. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Prince's claims were subject to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Senior District Judge William C. Conner, applying guidance from Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp., determined that the CBA did not contain a clear and unmistakable waiver of the plaintiff's statutory right to a judicial forum for her federal discrimination claims. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss or stay the proceedings.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIINYSHRLArbitration AgreementCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Waiver of Federal Forum RightsSummary Judgment MotionHostile Work EnvironmentSexual HarassmentRetaliation
References
7
Case No. ADJ3387478 (SAC 0297421)
Regular
Dec 01, 2008

MIGHAEL THAO vs. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, SELECT PERSONNEL SERVICES, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED GROUP

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where CIGA seeks reconsideration of a finding that its liability for an injured applicant's spine and head injury was not absolved by other insurance. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the previous findings, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board held that Coca Cola's Zurich insurance policy constituted "other insurance" as per Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), thereby relieving CIGA of liability for the claim.

CIGAspecial employmentgeneral employmentother insurancecovered claimsInsurance Code 1063.1(c)(9)joint and several liabilityemployer liabilityrescindedreconsideration
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 7,824 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