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. ADJ2524386 (LAO 0803654) ADJ2571077 (LAO 0803655)
Regular
Oct 02, 2020

RAUL MARINO vs. COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, BROADSPIRE

This case concerns a minor amendment to an already approved Compromise and Release agreement between Raul Marino and Coca-Cola Enterprises. The defendant sought to increase the net payment to the applicant by $47.14 and correct the date of injury for one of the cases. The applicant agreed to these changes, and the Board found them to be in the applicant's best interest. Consequently, the Board amended its previous decision to incorporate these agreed-upon modifications.

Compromise and ReleaseAmendmentNet Amount PayableDate of InjuryReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSelf-InsuredApplicantDefendantOpinion and Order
References
0
Case No. SJO 244847
Regular
Feb 06, 2008

Celestine Lewis vs. COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns Celestine Lewis's claim against Coca-Cola Enterprises for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Lewis's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision regarding the apportionment of her permanent disability. The WCAB adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, which upheld the apportionment of 30% of Lewis's permanent disability to pre-existing arthritis, consistent with recent legislative changes emphasizing apportionment to causative factors including pathology.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCelestine LewisCoca-Cola EnterprisesInc.Permissibly Self-InsuredPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDivision of Workers' CompensationJudicial AuthorityOriginal Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. ADJ7035398
Regular
Mar 10, 2010

ANDREW MERLOS vs. COCA COLA ENTERPRISES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

Defendant Coca Cola Enterprises petitioned for removal of a WCJ's order requiring an adjuster to appear in person at trial with settlement authority. Defendant argued the adjuster was in Ontario, travel was costly, settlement authority was present at the MSC, and the order denied due process. The Appeals Board granted removal, finding the order would not facilitate settlement and the expense was unjustified given the parties' positions. The Board amended the order to allow the adjuster to appear by telephone with settlement authority.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalOrder to AppearSettlement AuthorityMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue ProcessQualified Medical EvaluationPermanent DisabilityTrial AppearanceTelephone Appearance
References
0
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palacios v. THE COCA-COLA CO.

Guatemalan labor activists and their family members, including José Armando Palacios and José Alberto Vicente Chavez, sued The Coca-Cola Company and unnamed agents in New York, alleging violence and human rights abuses in Guatemala related to union activities at an affiliated plant. Coca-Cola moved to dismiss the action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The court granted the motion, determining that Guatemala was an available and adequate alternative forum. The decision emphasized the concentration of evidence in Guatemala, the local interest in resolving the dispute, and the likely application of Guatemalan law, despite concerns raised by plaintiffs regarding the Guatemalan judicial system and their safety.

Forum non conveniensInternational litigationGuatemalan labor disputeHuman rights abusesCorporate social responsibilityTort claimsChoice of lawJudicial discretionPrivate interest factorsPublic interest factors
References
45
Case No. 528726
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2019

Matter of Rodriguez v. Coca Cola

Claimant Luis Rodriguez sustained multiple work-related injuries in March 2009. The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) previously found both the claimant's treating physician and the employer's independent medical examiner incredible regarding the extent of permanency and schedule loss of use, due to insufficient examinations or lack of record review. Despite this, upon remittal, the Board again found both medical expert opinions incredible but proceeded to classify claimant with a nonschedule permanent partial disability with a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity, based on the 'entirety of the medical record.' The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, holding that the Board improperly fashioned its own medical opinion after rejecting all expert testimony, and that its determination was therefore not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseWage-Earning CapacityMedical Expert CredibilityBoard's Medical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceRemittalAppellate ReviewNeck Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 565 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