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

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. ADJ11167540
Regular
Feb 15, 2019

CHARLES SENIFF vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Federal Express's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's finding of jurisdiction. Federal Express argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant did not work in California after 2006. The Board adopted the judge's report, which found California jurisdiction supported by Labor Code section 3600.5(a) and precedent case law, deeming these sufficient grounds despite the defendant's jurisdictional challenge.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFederal Express CorporationSedgwick Claims Management ServicesADJ11167540Santa Ana District OfficeAmended Findings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgejurisdictionLabor Code section 3600.5(a)Alaska Packers Asso. v. Industrial Acci. Com.
References
1
Case No. ADJ12138014 ADJ10965293
Regular
Jan 21, 2020

DONALD WRIGHT vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION

The WCAB denied Defendant Federal Express Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that applicant Donald Wright is entitled to a separate Agreed Medical Evaluator or Qualified Medical Examiner for his cumulative trauma (CT) claim. Defendant argued applicant waived this right by not filing a claim form for the CT claim, citing *Navarro v. City of Montebello*. However, the Board found that while the initial finding of injury AOE/COE was a threshold issue, the entitlement to a separate QME for the CT claim was interlocutory. As Defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, removal was denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDDONALD WRIGHTFEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATIONADJ12138014ADJ10965293Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJcumulative trauma (CT) claimpanel qualified medical evaluator (QME)
References
5
Case No. 16 NY3d 706
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2011

Federal Insurance v. International Business MacHines Corp.

Federal Insurance Company (Federal) sought a declaration that its excess insurance policy did not cover attorneys' fees paid by International Business Machines Corporation and the IBM Personal Pension Plan (collectively, IBM) in a class action lawsuit (*Cooper v IBM Personal Pension Plan*). The *Cooper* action alleged violations of ERISA pertaining to age discrimination. IBM sought reimbursement from Federal after exhausting an underlying Zurich policy. The core dispute revolved around whether the disputed language in Federal's "follow form" policy extended coverage to IBM's actions as a plan settlor, which are not considered fiduciary acts under ERISA. The Supreme Court initially denied Federal's motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to Federal. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the policy's plain language limited coverage to acts of an insured undertaken in its capacity as an ERISA fiduciary, which IBM was not in this instance.

Insurance Policy InterpretationERISAFiduciary DutyExcess InsuranceSummary JudgmentPlan SettlorEmployee Benefit PlansContract LawPolicy CoverageAge Discrimination
References
18
Case No. ADJ9843286
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

MARQUIS MAYFIELD vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, PSI, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

In *Mayfield v. Federal Express Corporation*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior order. The WCAB rescinded an August 2, 2017 order that had commuted future weekly payments to a lump sum of $6,000. This rescission was based on the defendant's petition for reconsideration, supported by the applicant's counsel, who also requested rescission. The primary reason for rescission was that the full settlement award had already been advanced to the applicant, leaving no remaining funds for commutation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCommutation OrderRescindedFederal Express CorporationSedgwick CMSPermanent Disability AwardEconomic HardshipStatement of Non-OppositionAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01871 [181 AD3d 1118]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Campos v. Federal Express Corp.

Claimant Monserrate Campos filed for workers' compensation benefits in 2014 due to neck and back injuries sustained as a tractor trailer driver. During independent medical examinations, it was revealed that he failed to disclose a prior work-related back injury from 2008, leading the self-insured employer to allege a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that § 114-a did not apply, but a Board panel subsequently modified this decision, finding a violation and imposing a mandatory penalty. Claimant's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review of this decision was denied by the Workers' Compensation Board in May 2018. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's denial of reconsideration, concluding that review was limited to whether the Board abused its discretion, as the merits of the underlying § 114-a violation were not properly appealed.

MisrepresentationPrior InjuryMandatory PenaltyBoard ReviewAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewProcedural HistoryFactual FindingJudicial DiscretionMedical Disclosure
References
8
Case No. 02 Civ. 3355
Regular Panel Decision

Holowecki v. Federal Express Corp.

This aging age discrimination case involves twelve current and former employees suing Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) for alleged age discrimination under the ADEA and New York State Human Rights Law. The case, initially dismissed, was revived after appeals to the Second Circuit and Supreme Court concerning the

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentADEANew York State Human Rights LawFed.R.Civ.P. 56Piggybacking RuleDisparate TreatmentConstructive DischargeMedical Leave Policies
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1996

Aquinas v. Federal Express Corp.

Sabrina Aquinas sued her former employer, Federal Express Corporation (FedEx), for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL), and for breach of contract. Aquinas alleged she was harassed and fired due to a physical disability (fibromyalgia) causing excessive absenteeism. FedEx moved for summary judgment, arguing Aquinas was not 'disabled' under the ADA/NYHRL, not 'otherwise qualified' due to poor attendance being an essential job function, and that her at-will employment contract was not altered by the employee handbook. The court, presided over by Judge Stein, granted FedEx's motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

ADANYHRLDisability DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentWorkplace HarassmentWrongful TerminationFibromyalgiaExcessive AbsenteeismReasonable Accommodation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jirak v. Federal Express Corp.

Plaintiff Patricia Jirak, a part-time courier for Federal Express Corporation, was terminated due to a poor attendance record. She subsequently filed a sex discrimination lawsuit, alleging violations of Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the Equal Pay Act, claiming her termination stemmed from discrimination, unequal pay compared to male counterparts, mental anguish, and defamation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence of sex discrimination as the attendance policy was applied uniformly. It also determined that menstrual cramps are not a protected medical condition under the PDA, and dismissed the Equal Pay Act claim due to lack of evidence, while other claims were abandoned.

Sex DiscriminationTitle VIIPregnancy Discrimination ActEqual Pay ActSummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationAttendance PolicyDisparate TreatmentFederal ExpressPatricia Jirak
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 4,699 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