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
Dec 29, 2014

City of New York v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

The City and State of New York sued FedEx Ground, alleging the knowing delivery of unstamped cigarettes from 2005 to 2012, which violated the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (CCTA), the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and New York Public Health Law § 1399-ii, and constituted a public nuisance. FedEx Ground filed a motion to dismiss these claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss the CCTA, RICO, and RICO conspiracy claims, finding sufficient grounds for aggregation of sales, pattern of predicate acts, participation in the enterprise, injury to business or property, and proximate causation. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the New York Public Health Law claim, ruling that the 2013 amendment, which would grant the City and State enforcement authority, did not apply retroactively. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the public nuisance claim, concluding that it primarily involved alleged tax evasion, which is already subject to comprehensive regulation, rather than unauthorized shipments to minors.

Contraband CigarettesCigarette TraffickingRICO ActPublic Health LawPublic NuisanceMotion to DismissTax EvasionStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationProximate Cause
References
42
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06423 [188 AD3d 1378]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Foster v. FedEx Frgt. Inc.

The case involves an appeal by FedEx Freight Inc. from a Workers' Compensation Board decision that established claimant James Foster's average weekly wage using a 260 multiple. Foster was injured at work, and the Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) determined his average weekly wage based on working "substantially the whole of the year," despite working 225 days, which is less than the traditional 234-day guideline. The Board affirmed, asserting its discretion to find that 225 days constituted "substantially the whole of the year" for a five-day worker under Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the statute does not require a specific number of days for this finding and that the Board's calculation was supported by substantial evidence.

Average Weekly WageWorkers' Compensation Law § 14Substantially Whole of the Year260 MultipleWage CalculationAppellate Division DecisionWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewStatutory InterpretationFull-time EmploymentFive-day Worker
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC

The case concerns a putative class action brought by delivery drivers against several defendants, including Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC, for alleged violations of Labor Law article 6 regarding wage and benefit payments. The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, categorizing the drivers as independent contractors. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship due to the defendants' control over their work. The court also determined that the documentary evidence provided by the defendants was insufficient to conclusively prove the drivers were independent contractors, thus denying the motions to dismiss.

Class ActionLabor LawWage and HourEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewDegree of ControlDelivery DriversWorkers' Rights
References
26
Case No. ADJ9823935, ADJ9088024
Regular
May 20, 2016

LE VAN vs. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted FedEx's petition for reconsideration but ultimately affirmed the original order finding treatment by Monrovia Memorial Hospital reasonable and necessary. The Board clarified that even if the cervical spine was not explicitly pled as an injured body part, FedEx authorized the treatment and failed to properly rescind that authorization. Therefore, the lien claimant is entitled to payment for the services rendered.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderlien claimantMonrovia Memorial Hospitalcervical spineDr. Wilkercervical surgeryobjection letterprimary treating physician
References
0
Case No. ADJ16905183
Regular
Apr 03, 2025

KIMBERLY ARREOLA CORTES vs. OC DIRECT DELIVERY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Kimberly Arreola Cortes, a delivery associate, claimed a work-related injury but repeatedly failed to attend scheduled medical evaluations with QME Dr. Ryan Culver due to personal reasons and relocation. Following a petition by the defendant, OC Direct Delivery, for dismissal due to inactivity, the WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Case. Applicant filed a premature Petition for Reconsideration, incorrectly believing the NIT was a final order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration, finding both applicant's petition and defendant's prior petition for dismissal premature due to errors in applying notice periods for out-of-state service, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissQualified Medical EvaluatorAOE/COEOut-of-State RelocationWCAB Rule 10550Inactive Case DismissalPetition for DismissalPremature Filing
References
3
Case No. ADJ106846 (VNO 0536976)
Regular
Apr 28, 2011

SARKIS INDOIAN (Dec'd), BETTY INDOIAN (Widow) vs. ON THE WHEELS, SUCCESS DELIVERY, NOUNE SOMOKRANIAN, VIGEN GABOUCHIAN, ROUZZANA ARCHAKOUNI, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the decedent sustained a fatal cumulative trauma injury due to his employment with Success Delivery. The Board found the medical evidence, particularly the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report, lacked sufficient factual basis and an accurate employment history to establish a causal link. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial level for further development of the medical record to determine if the employment with Success Delivery contributed to the injury.

Cumulative traumaIndustrial injuryDeath benefitsEmployment relationshipSubstantial shareholderPartnershipUninsured employerMedical evidenceCausationApportionment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Michigan Logistics Inc.

Plaintiffs (Johanna Diaz, et al.) sued Michigan Logistics Inc. d/b/a Diligent Deliveries, Northeast Logistics, Inc. d/b/a Diligent Deliveries (collectively, "Diligent"), and Parts Authority Inc. for alleged violations of the FLSA and NYLL, claiming misclassification as independent contractors and denial of minimum wage and overtime. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, citing owner-operator agreements with arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs opposed, arguing they were exempt from the FAA as transportation workers and that Parts Authority, a nonsignatory, could not compel arbitration. The court, presided by Judge Wexler, granted the defendants' motion, finding that even if the FAA did not apply, New York arbitration law favored arbitration and that Parts Authority could compel arbitration under equitable estoppel. Consequently, the Opt-in Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the case was stayed pending arbitration.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawArbitrationIndependent Contractor ClassificationWage and Hour ClaimsOvertime CompensationClass Action WaiverCollective Action WaiverFederal Arbitration ActEquitable Estoppel
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Charles A. Field Delivery Service, Inc.

The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order that affirmed the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's (UIAB) decision classifying a delivery service's drivers as independent contractors, exempting the service from unemployment insurance contributions. The Court found the UIAB's determination arbitrary and capricious for failing to adhere to its own prior precedents (Matter of Di Martino and Matter of Wells) or provide a rational explanation for reaching a different result on essentially similar facts. The case was remitted to the UIAB for further proceedings, requiring it to either conform to its precedent or justify its departure.

unemployment benefitsemployment lawadministrative reviewagency discretionjudicial precedentstatutory interpretationNew York lawemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractor statusdue process
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ovando v. Hanover Delivery Service, Inc.

The claimant filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a work-related injury to their left arm while working for Hanover Delivery Service, Inc. A dispute arose between American Motorists Insurance Company and the State Insurance Fund regarding which company was the proper workers' compensation carrier for the employer in New York. American Motorists argued its policy only provided coverage in New Jersey, while the State Insurance Fund contended American Motorists was the correct carrier. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that American Motorists was the proper carrier, finding ambiguity in the policy documents in favor of coverage. American Motorists appealed this determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that insurance exclusions are to be strictly and narrowly construed, and noted American Motorists' failure to provide the full policy for review.

Insurance Coverage DisputePolicy AmbiguityWorkers' Compensation Board AppealAppellate AffirmationInsurance ExclusionsEmployer LiabilityCarrier IdentificationPolicy InterpretationNew Jersey CoverageStrict Construction
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 198 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