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. 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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Clumber Transportation Corp.

Clumber Transportation Corporation and Poppy Cab Corporation appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found both corporations to be employers, subject to workers’ compensation insurance requirements, because they leased taxicab medallions and, in Clumber's case, had more than one corporate officer prior to January 1, 1987. The corporations challenged the statutory employment relationship and the Board Chairman's authority to delegate penalty imposition. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2, finding that medallion leases created a statutory employment relationship. It also upheld the Board's finding regarding Clumber's multiple officers and the Chairman's delegation authority. However, the court modified the penalty against Poppy Cab Corporation, reducing it from $7,200 to $6,000, while affirming the decision against Clumber.

Workers Compensation LawTaxicab MedallionEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory EmploymentCorporate OfficersInsurance RequirementDelegation of AuthorityAdministrative PenaltiesAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2009

Johnson v. UniFirst Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Derrick Corporation, sustained injuries when his uniform, rented from UniFirst Corporation, caught fire. UniFirst, a defendant in the main personal injury action, filed a third-party complaint against Derrick for contractual indemnification. Derrick moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing that its contract with UniFirst had expired at the time of the accident, thus barring indemnification under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied Derrick's motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and Derrick's motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. The appellate court found UniFirst failed to provide statutory notice for automatic contract renewal under General Obligations Law § 5-903 (2).

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAutomatic Renewal ProvisionThird-Party ActionPersonal InjuryUniform FireEmployer LiabilityStatutory Notice
References
6
Case No. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Tredegar Corp.

Exxon Mobil Corporation sued Tredegar Corporation alleging breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). Exxon claimed Tredegar failed to indemnify it for a settlement in an underlying personal injury action and failed to cooperate in Exxon's defense as per the APA. Tredegar filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I, finding the indemnification provisions of the APA ambiguous regarding whether the liability was 'assumed' or 'retained'. However, the court largely denied the motion to dismiss Count II, concluding that Exxon plausibly alleged a breach of Tredegar's duty to cooperate and provide reasonable access to employees, with a partial grant for the records access claim under Section 12.7 of the APA.

asset purchase agreementindemnification clausebreach of contractduty to cooperatemotion to dismisscontract ambiguitycorporate acquisitionpre-closing occurrencespost-closing eventslitigation defense
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 1987

Constantine v. Sperry Corp.

James Constantine, a passenger in a van leased by his employer Sperry Corporation, was injured when the van, operated by a fellow employee Oligario, struck a curb. The plaintiffs appealed a judgment denying their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross motion, dismissing the complaint. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that Constantine's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, making his sole remedy the Workers' Compensation Law. Consequently, both the employer and co-worker were immune from suit, and no liability could be imputed to the van owner, Gelco Corporation. The derivative claim by Constantine's wife was also dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationEmployer ImmunityCo-employee ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDerivative ClaimVan AccidentNassau CountyNew York
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,563 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