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
Jun 29, 1981

Betancourt v. Hertz Corp.

A mechanic employed by the Hertz Corporation was injured while repairing a truck owned by Hertz and leased to Productive Trucking Company, when the truck's operator (a Productive employee) started the engine without engaging neutral, causing the truck to move and strike the plaintiff. After receiving workers' compensation benefits, the plaintiff sued Hertz, Productive, and the operator, alleging Hertz's liability as the vehicle owner. Hertz moved for summary judgment, arguing workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but the Appellate Division reversed the decision, granting Hertz's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against it, citing that the workers' compensation award served as the plaintiff's full and exclusive remedy.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyVehicle Owner LiabilityAppellate ReviewDamagesTrucking
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02379
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2017

Bayona v. Hertz Corp.

Plaintiff Enrique Bayona, an employee of nonparty CB Richard Ellis, was assigned to work at Hertz locations and subsequently sued Hertz Corporation. Hertz moved for summary judgment, contending that Bayona was a special employee, which would bar the action under Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied Hertz's motion and, sua sponte, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment, ruling that he was not a special employee. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. The court found that despite Hertz directing the manner of Bayona's work, CB Richard Ellis retained significant control, including paying wages, the right to hire/discharge/reassign, and supervisory oversight, thus preventing a finding of 'complete and exclusive control' by Hertz necessary for special employee status.

Special Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BarAppellate DivisionControl TestEmployer-Employee RelationshipLabor LawJoint EmploymentContractual ControlVicarious Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Melissa Castillo brought claims of sex discrimination, retaliation, and constructive discharge against Rappaport, Hertz, Cherson & Rosenthal, P.C., William Rappaport, and Herbie Gonzalez under Title VII. Castillo sought to intervene in the EEOC's action and assert additional state and city claims, while the defendant moved to compel arbitration of Castillo's claims based on an employment arbitration agreement. The court granted Castillo's motion to intervene and permitted her state and local claims to proceed under supplemental jurisdiction. The court also granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration for all of Castillo's claims, determining that the arbitration agreement was an employer-promulgated plan and the associated costs would not be prohibitively expensive. The EEOC's action was not stayed, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement, but Castillo's individual proceedings were stayed pending arbitration.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeTitle VIIArbitration AgreementInterventionEmployment DiscriminationFederal Arbitration ActSupplemental JurisdictionEEOC Enforcement Action
References
51
Case No. MON 0279679
Regular
Jun 26, 2008

EILEEN HALPERN vs. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Hertz Corporation's request to reconsider its dismissal of Hertz's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that Hertz's petition was untimely because it was filed with the San Francisco district office, rather than directly with the Appeals Board itself, as required by Rule 10840 for decisions issued by the Board. Even if the petition had been lodged with the district office on the filing deadline, it was not received by the Appeals Board itself within the statutory timeframe.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for reconsiderationUntimely filingWCAB Rule 10840District office filingAppeals Board filingMandatory and jurisdictionalReconsideration on Board motionLabor CodeCode of Civil Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Hertz Corp.

Plaintiff Derrick Anderson, an African-American man, sued Hertz Corporation for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New York State Executive Law § 296, alleging wrongful termination based on race. Anderson claimed he was subjected to derogatory racial remarks by subordinates, and that senior management failed to take disciplinary action. He also argued that his termination, following a physical altercation, was discriminatory, especially given he was the only African-American manager at that facility. The court found that Anderson failed to establish a prima facie case, citing that the racial remarks were not from decision-makers, Anderson himself could have disciplined subordinates but chose not to, and both participants in the fight were terminated. Additionally, the 'same actor' inference applied, as the manager who hired Anderson also fired him within a year. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Racial DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawWorkplace AltercationHostile Work EnvironmentPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting AnalysisSame Actor InferenceManagerial Responsibility
References
24
Case No. MON 279679
Regular
Sep 19, 2007

EILEEN HALPERN vs. COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTERS, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Hertz Corporation's petition for reconsideration regarding Eileen Halpern's admitted industrial injury to her pulmonary and psyche systems. The Board granted Halpern's petition, finding that the prior decision failed to fully incorporate all factors of permanent disability as described by a key medical evaluator and incorrectly determined the temporary disability indemnity rate without applying Labor Code section 4661.5. Consequently, new rating instructions will be issued to accurately reflect the applicant's full permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEileen HalpernCommunity Medical CentersTristar Risk ManagementHertz Corporationpulmonary systempsyche injurytemporary disability indemnitypermanent disabilityapportionment
References
3
Case No. SJO 0251644
En Banc
Jan 24, 2007

Joseph Baglione vs. Hertz Car Sales, AIG

The Board holds that for a pre-2005 injury, the former Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) applies if a comprehensive medical-legal report was issued before January 1, 2005, regardless of whether the report itself indicated the existence of permanent disability.

SB 899PDRSLabor Code section 4660(d)en banccomprehensive medical-legal reporttreating physician reportformer PDRSnew PDRSlast antecedent rulestatutory construction
References
19
Case No. ADJ848663 (RDG 0126993)
Regular
Dec 03, 2014

TRACIE LOPEZ vs. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, SPECIALTY RISK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior ruling that deemed applicant Tracie Lopez's petition for increased benefits untimely filed. The applicant argued her due process rights were violated because the judge instructed parties not to submit evidence, then failed to hold an evidentiary hearing. The WCAB agreed to reconsider to allow the applicant to present evidence regarding equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for her discrimination claim. This matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record and a new final decision.

Labor Code Section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAmended PetitionTimelinessDue ProcessEvidentiary HearingPoints and AuthoritiesEquitable BasisToll the Statute of Limitations
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1999

Claim of the Estate of Hertz v. Gannett Rochester Newspapers

The decedent, a newspaper delivery person, suffered a fatal heart attack during the course of his employment. His estate filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, which was denied by the Workers’ Compensation Board on the grounds that the death was not causally related to his employment. The claimant appealed, arguing that the Board erred in requiring medical causation despite the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1). The court affirmed the Board’s decision, stating that the presumption did not relieve the claimant from establishing that the death arose out of and in the course of employment. The Board properly weighed conflicting expert evidence, crediting the employer's expert who concluded the death was due to coronary thrombosis unrelated to work, thereby providing substantial evidence to rebut the presumption.

Heart AttackWorkers’ CompensationCausationPresumption of CompensabilityExpert TestimonyConflicting EvidenceCoronary ThrombosisAtherosclerotic ChangeNewspaper Delivery PersonBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. SJO 0251644
En Banc
Apr 06, 2007

Joseph Baglione vs. Hertz Car Sales, AIG, Cambridge Integrated Services

The Appeals Board holds that for the 1997 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities to apply to a pre-2005 injury, a comprehensive medical-legal report or treating physician's report issued before 2005 must explicitly indicate the existence of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoseph BaglioneHertz Car SalesAIGCambridge Integrated ServicesOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationEn Banc1997 Schedule2005 Schedule
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 18 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