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. ADJ9181559
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

EXTRAIN CERVANTES vs. GARDEN FRESH RESTAURANT CORPORATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration and removal filed by the defendant, Garden Fresh Restaurant Corporation and its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was improperly filed against a non-final interlocutory order. The WCAB also denied removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant's attorney was admonished for filing the petition against a clearly non-final ruling.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalDenial of RemovalFinal OrderInterlocutory DecisionSubstantive RightLiabilityWCJ RulingAdministrative Law JudgeTravelers Insurance Company
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Solis v. SCA Restaurant Corp.

The Secretary of Labor brought an action against SCA Restaurant Corporation and its owner, Luigi Quarta, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, inadequate record-keeping, and retaliation. After a bench trial, the court found the defendants liable on all claims, determining their violations were willful. The defendants paid fixed weekly salaries despite employees working over 40 hours, falsified records, and threatened employees for testifying. The court awarded $137,867.12 in unpaid wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages, and $2,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. A prospective injunction was also issued to prevent future FLSA violations.

FLSA ViolationsMinimum WageOvertime CompensationRecord Keeping ViolationsEmployee RetaliationWillful ViolationsUndocumented WorkersLiquidated DamagesCompensatory DamagesInjunctive Relief
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1998

In re Mamash Restaurant Corp.

Mamash Restaurant Corporation appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions and a fraud penalty for the audit period of January 1993 through December 1995. The Board's assessment was based on findings that Mamash underreported its employees and failed to produce accurate records. Mamash contended that the Board improperly estimated the number of employees due to physical capacity limitations of its premises. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board was justified in its estimated assessment given Mamash's failure to produce records and evidence from a tax auditor's survey. The fraud penalty was also upheld as warranted under the circumstances.

Unemployment InsuranceUnderreporting EmployeesFraud PenaltyEstimated AssessmentEmployee RecordsAudit PeriodAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionNew York Labor LawEmployer Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2007

Hai Ming Lu v. Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc.

Plaintiffs, members of the wait staff at Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc., filed an action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) concerning minimum wage, overtime, gratuity retention, uniform reimbursement, and retaliation, alongside a breach of contract claim. The defendants, Jing Fong Restaurant, Inc. and six associated individuals, moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment, dismissing claims related to retaliation, uniform cleaning costs, breach of contract, and the argument that retaining banquet service charges violated NYLL § 196-d, citing New York appellate precedents. However, the motion was denied for claims alleging the illegal use of the gratuity pool to pay restaurant expenses, improper tip credit usage under federal and state law, and management interference in tip distribution. The Court found that genuine issues of material fact remained for trial on these latter points.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Minimum WageOvertime ViolationsGratuitiesTip PoolingService ChargesUniform ReimbursementRetaliationSummary Judgment
References
14
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00009 [234 AD3d 1037]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2025

Burgos v. Darden Rests., Inc.

Jose Burgos was injured while demolishing a walk-in freezer at an Olive Garden restaurant in Broome County. He initiated a lawsuit against Darden Restaurants, Inc., Feinberg-Harris Properties, LLC, N and D Restaurants, LLC, and Olive Garden Holdings, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) and common-law negligence. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), while defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing other claims. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted defendants' cross-motion in part. Plaintiff's subsequent motion to renew, based on a supplemental expert affidavit, was granted by the Supreme Court, but it adhered to its original determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of plaintiff's partial summary judgment motion, finding that defendants successfully raised triable issues of fact regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and whether plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division also reversed the Supreme Court's decision to grant plaintiff's motion to renew, ruling that there was no reasonable justification for the delayed submission of new facts.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentMotion to RenewExpert TestimonyElevation-related hazardProximate CauseContributory NegligenceDemolition AccidentConstruction Safety
References
15
Case No. ADJ7762389
Regular
Jan 22, 2014

ANA RAMIREZ vs. HENROSE CORPORATION, dba MCDONALDS RESTAURANT, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Henrose Corporation's Petition for Removal. Petitioner sought to have the applicant re-evaluated by Agreed Medical Examiners (AMEs) to potentially extend temporary disability beyond the statutory limit, arguing their initial reports were insufficient. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal. The denial was based on the judge's report, which concluded the matter was set for trial appropriately and the requested re-evaluations were not warranted under the circumstances.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent and Stationary DateTemporary DisabilityMedical ReportsOrthopedic InjuryPsychiatric InjuryAdministrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 4656(c)(1)Agreed Medical Examiner
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. ADJ6786901
Regular
Aug 24, 2010

IDELFONSO RODRIGUEZ vs. GARDEN FRESH RESTAURANTS CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROP. CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves a defendant's premature petition for dismissal of a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the prior order was interlocutory and not a final determination of substantive rights. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the defendant's request for removal, finding no basis for extraordinary relief due to lack of demonstrated prejudice. The WCAB affirmed the judge's denial of dismissal as premature under Board Rule 10582.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalRemovalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderLabor CodeSubstantive RightLiabilityApplication for Adjudication
References
7
Case No. ADJ10452586
Regular
Sep 24, 2018

CONSTANTINO MARTINEZ vs. BLUEWATER GRILL, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, INC.

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer in four sentences: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding injury AOE/COE. The Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's reliance on the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion, finding no persuasive reason to deviate. Defendants' arguments that the AME's opinion was based on an inadequate history or was conclusory were rejected. The Board also refused to consider a neurologic report procured after trial, as discovery had closed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorWCJ reportsubstantial medical evidencePetition for RemovalPetition for Change VenueApplication for Adjudication of ClaimFindings and AwardInjury AOE/COE
References
4
Case No. ADJ8266811 ADJ8710466
Regular
Jan 12, 2017

LILIANA RUIZ vs. MCDONALD'S, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION

This case involves Liliana Ruiz filing eleven workers' compensation claims against McDonald's, six of which were consolidated. One defendant, Zenith Insurance Company, settled two of these consolidated cases with Ruiz via a Compromise and Release for $20,000. Another defendant, California Restaurant Mutual Benefit Corporation (administered by American Claims Management), petitioned for reconsideration, arguing the settlement contravened consolidation purposes. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found American Claims failed to demonstrate prejudice or good cause to set aside the settlement. The Board clarified that Zenith's settlement resolved only its potential liability and did not affect American Claims' right to seek contribution.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseContributionConsolidationCumulative TraumaAOE/COEApportionmentInsurance CoverageWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,952 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