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

Claim of Colin v. Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

The claimant, a for-hire driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an automobile accident, naming Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc. and Yolette Kernisan as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the claimant was an independent contractor of Express. On appeal, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the finding that the claimant was not an employee of Yolette Kernisan and remitting the matter for further consideration regarding Kernisan's relationship with the claimant, citing an improper control standard. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding of no employment relationship with Express, supported by substantial evidence regarding drivers supplying their own vehicles and expenses, and ability to work for other companies.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentRadio-Dispatched Car ServiceVehicle OwnershipControl TestRemittalAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. ADJ9803664
Regular
Dec 04, 2015

JUAN GONZALEZ (Deceased), DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DEATH WITHOUT DEPENDENTS UNIT vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL DISABILITY & RETIREMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted removal and rescinded a judge's order that stayed proceedings pending the outcome of a probate case. The WCAB determined that probate court findings have limited relevance to determining workers' compensation death benefits and that the WCAB has sole jurisdiction over dependency issues. By staying the proceedings, the judge's order caused significant prejudice to the defendant, SCIF, by hindering discovery and resolution of a potential partial dependency claim. The matter was reset for further proceedings, with parties urged to attempt informal settlement.

Death benefitsDependencyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceProbate proceedingsLabor CodeCalifornia Highway PatrolState Compensation Insurance FundDeath Without Dependents Unit
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sulewski v. Federal Express Corp.

A cargo plane crashed in Malaysia in 1989, resulting in the death of aircraft mechanic Leonard Sulewski. The plaintiff initiated a wrongful death action against Federal Express Corporation, successor to Flying Tiger Line, alleging liability under the Warsaw Convention and common law negligence. The central legal question revolved around whether Sulewski was traveling as a passenger or an on-duty employee at the time of the crash. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, presenting arguments regarding Sulewski's employment status and the applicability of the Convention. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact, concluding that Sulewski was an on-duty employee, not a passenger, and therefore the Warsaw Convention did not apply. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Wrongful DeathWarsaw ConventionSummary JudgmentAirline LiabilityEmployee StatusPassenger StatusInternational TransportationAircraft MechanicScope of EmploymentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2008

Borrero v. American Express Bank Ltd.

Plaintiff Catalina Borrero sued her former employer, American Express Bank, Ltd. (AEB), alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under federal, state, and city laws. AEB moved for summary judgment. The court, presided over by Judge Chin, granted summary judgment in part, dismissing Title VII claims occurring before May 12, 2004, due to statute of limitations. However, summary judgment was denied for remaining Title VII disparate treatment claims, Equal Pay Act (EPA) claims, retaliation claims, and analogous state and city law claims, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding Circle's actions, wage disparity, and constructive discharge. A pretrial conference is scheduled for February 15, 2008.

Gender discriminationRetaliationTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSummary judgmentConstructive dischargeHostile work environmentWage discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
40
Case No. ADJ2593762 (SAC 0363364)
Regular
Jul 13, 2012

RICHARD HODGE vs. DEPENDABLE HIGHWAY EXPRESS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's decision to provide psychiatric treatment. Even if the need for psychiatric treatment stems from a potentially non-compensable psychiatric injury, the employer remains liable if the treatment is reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of a compensable industrial injury. In this case, the applicant's psychiatric treatment was deemed necessary to address cognitive impairment caused by a compensable traumatic brain injury. Therefore, the employer is liable for this treatment under established case law, regardless of the nuances of the six-month employment rule.

Labor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinary exceptionsix-month employment rulemedical treatmentLabor Code section 4600reasonably requiredcure or relievenon-compensable injurypsychiatric treatmenttraumatic brain injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allan v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Structural Preservation Systems (SPS), was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while performing structural repairs in a building owned by 500 Lincoln, LLC and leased by DHL Express (USA), Inc. The plaintiff commenced an action against both entities, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln and denied DHL's motions for summary judgment to dismiss various claims against it. On appeal, the court modified the Supreme Court's decision, determining that DHL should have been granted summary judgment dismissing all Labor Law and common-law negligence claims against it, as DHL neither directed nor controlled the work. The court also found that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln should have been denied due to triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and the availability of adequate safety devices.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationProximate CauseSafe Place to WorkOwner LiabilityLessee Liability
References
29
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00080 [201 AD3d 1045]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Matter of Fiorelli (Stallion Express, LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns Charlene Fiorelli's claim for unemployment insurance benefits after her delivery courier services for Stallion Express, LLC (SE) concluded. The Department of Labor determined she was an employee, making SE liable for contributions, a decision affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. SE appealed, contending Fiorelli was an independent contractor. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's ruling, finding substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship based on SE's significant control over Fiorelli's work, including mandatory uniforms, background checks, training, scheduled routes, and specific delivery and documentation procedures.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery CourierUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardSubstantial EvidenceControl TestDepartment of LaborLogistics BusinessAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. 2016-02762 (Index No. 7314/09)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2018

Rapalo v. MJRB Kings Highway Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, Luis Gerardo Rapalo, a construction worker, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when a scaffold plank broke, causing him to fall approximately 30 feet at a building owned by MJRB Kings Highway Realty, LLC. He alleged a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, reversed the lower court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for a Labor Law § 240(1) violation, and the defendant failed to present a triable issue of fact concerning the sole proximate cause or comparative negligence.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryProximate CauseComparative NegligenceSafety DevicesPremises Liability
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State ex rel. Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 743 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