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
Sep 29, 1982

Claim of Sullivan v. Zerwick Food Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the effective date of an insurance policy cancellation. The claimant was injured while employed by Zerwick Food Corporation, which was insured by St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. The Board found the policy cancellation effective April 10, 1978, having complied with subdivision 5 of section 54 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Uninsured Employers Fund appealed, citing the necessity of strict compliance with cancellation notice requirements. The court, after reviewing the notice and testimony, affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the April 10, 1978 cancellation date.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance Policy CancellationNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewUninsured Employers FundPolicy Effective DateWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionNew York Law
References
2
Case No. 2023-00083 (Index No. 11032/18)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2024

Miolan v. Milmar Food Group, LLC

Alquidania Miolan appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Orange County, which granted summary judgment to Milmar Food Group, LLC, and Milmar Food Group II, LLC. Miolan sought damages for personal injuries from a slip and fall at a facility operated by the Milmar defendants, where she was employed through a staffing agency. The Milmar defendants successfully argued that Miolan's claims were precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, asserting they were her 'special employer.' The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Milmar defendants had established, prima facie, their status as Miolan's special employer. Consequently, the court concluded that Miolan's claims were barred by the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployerSummary JudgmentPersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewExclusivity ProvisionStaffing AgencyOrange CountyPremises Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jacobs v. Dellwood Foods

Claimant, a truck driver for Dellwood Foods, was injured when a company truck ran over his foot while he was walking to the company parking lot after purchasing lunch. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Board awarded compensation, but later rescinded it, finding the accident not to be in the course of employment. Dellwood Foods and its carrier appealed this reversal. The court analyzed whether the accident, occurring on a public sidewalk, fell within the "gray area" of employment, considering the presence of a Dellwood truck as a special hazard and the claimant's normal route. The court found both elements present, concluding the accident was compensable. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's decision that denied compensation and reinstated the original awards made to the claimant.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentGray Area DoctrineSpecial HazardRoute to WorkPublic Sidewalk InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard ReversalJurisdictional ReviewAccident Compensability
References
7
Case No. ADJ7895046
Regular
Dec 28, 2013

DEBRA ROY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA/DSS FOOD STAMP EMPLOYMENT TRAINING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order dismisses Debra Roy's petition for reconsideration as untimely filed. The original Findings of Fact and Orders were issued on August 1, 2013, and the petition was not filed within the statutory 25-day deadline. Even if timely, the WCAB would have denied the petition on the merits based on the administrative law judge's report. Supplemental documents filed by the applicant did not alter this decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Findings of Fact and OrdersIn propria personaWCAB Rules of Practice and ProcedureDismissedAdministrative Law JudgeApplicant's Attorney
References
1
Case No. 532932
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Matter of Lazalee v. Wegman's Food Mkts., Inc.

Claimant Thomas Lazalee, a truck driver, established claims for work-related occupational diseases in both hands, undergoing multiple surgeries. The employer, Wegman's Food Markets, Inc., initially paid temporary total disability benefits but later sought to cross-examine treating physician Raymond Stefanich regarding the degree of disability following a 2019 surgery. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied the employer's request as untimely, noting the employer had accepted liability and paid benefits for months without challenging the disability status. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to disturb the finding that the request for cross-examination was untimely, thereby waiving the employer's right.

Workers' Compensation Board DecisionOccupational Disease ClaimCarpal Tunnel SyndromeTrigger ThumbTemporary Total Disability BenefitsEmployer's Right to Cross-ExamineTimeliness of RequestMedical ReportsWaiver of RightsAppellate Review of Board Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08907 [156 AD3d 1132]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

Claim of Kraus v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc.

Claimant, Gerard J. Kraus, a workers' compensation claims adjustor for Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., was terminated due to inconsistent application of a no-fault policy, which led to him receiving threats from unionized employee drivers. He subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits, alleging a psychiatric occupational disease, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, panic disorder, and insomnia, stemming from work-related stress and threats. The Workers' Compensation Board found that claimant sustained a causally-related accidental psychiatric injury and rejected the employer's contention that claimant violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The Board also denied the employer's application for reconsideration, full Board review, and a rehearing, deeming some filings untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board's determination of a compensable work-related psychiatric injury was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board properly exercised its discretion in its procedural rulings.

Psychiatric InjuryPTSDWorkplace StressCausationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEmployer PolicyEmployee TerminationAdministrative ProcedureAppellate DivisionSufficiency of Evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pathmark Stores, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 342-50

Pathmark, an employer, initiated a lawsuit against the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 342 50, a labor union, due to an ongoing labor dispute. The core of Pathmark's complaint alleged breach of contract and various tortious acts by the Union, stemming from disagreements over the interpretation and application of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The central legal question before the court was whether Pathmark's claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the CBA, as the Union contended that the grievance and arbitration procedures were exclusively for employees. Applying the strong presumption of arbitrability in labor law, the court meticulously analyzed Article XXIII of the CBA, concluding that its broad language encompassed employer-initiated disputes despite the primary focus on employee grievances. Consequently, the court granted the Union's motion to dismiss Pathmark's federal contract claims, compelling arbitration, and subsequently declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Labor disputeArbitrationCollective bargaining agreementEmployer claimsUnion rightsGrievance procedureArbitrabilitySecond CircuitMotion to dismissFederal court jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. 87
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2023

The Matter of the Claim of Thomas Lazalee v. Wegman's Food Markets

Claimant Thomas Lazalee filed for workers' compensation benefits for a right thumb injury and carpal tunnel syndrome in 2018, and later for left-hand injuries in 2019. The employer, Wegman's Food Markets, Inc., paid temporary total disability benefits. At an April 2020 hearing, the employer accepted liability but requested to cross-examine the claimant's physician regarding the degree of impairment. The WCLJ denied the request, a decision affirmed by the Board and Appellate Division, which deemed the request untimely. The New York State Court of Appeals reversed, holding that 12 NYCRR 300.10 (c) mandates that a referee 'shall grant an adjournment' for cross-examination of an attending physician if requested at a hearing before a decision on the merits, affording no discretion to deny such a request. The court noted that if the Board desires discretion, it must amend its rules. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationNew York Court of AppealsCross-examinationPhysician ReportAdjournmentProcedural Due ProcessStatutory InterpretationRule 300.10(c)Employer RightsDisability Benefits
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suarez v. Food Emporium, Inc.

Plaintiff, a job coach for Casita Unida Clubhouse, was injured after slipping on a wet floor while filling in for a transitional employee at defendant Food Emporium. Although he received workers' compensation benefits, plaintiff also commenced a personal injury action against Food Emporium. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was barred because plaintiff was a 'special employee' of Food Emporium. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed. The court determined, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was a special employee due to Food Emporium's control over his work, thus dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarPersonal InjuryControl and DirectionAppellate ReviewDeli DepartmentJob CoachEmployer LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 10,761 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