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

Perero v. Hyatt Corp.

B-List banquet workers at Grand Hyatt New York sued Hyatt Corporation and two unions, alleging violations of labor laws, age discrimination, and breach of the duty of fair representation. The dispute arose from a change in staffing policy that prioritized A-List workers for higher-paying "doubles" and "splits" jobs, which plaintiffs contended violated their collective bargaining agreement and a 1998 arbitration award. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the entire complaint. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead both a breach of the collective bargaining agreement by the employer and a breach of the duty of fair representation by the unions.

Labor LawUnion RightsEmployment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationCollective BargainingMotion PracticeFederal CourtStatutory InterpretationRule 12(c) MotionHybrid Claim
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Janneh v. Regency Hotel, Binghamton

Mr. Janneh, a black male, sued The Regency Hotel, Binghamton, for racial discrimination after his termination as a night auditor in 1989. He initially filed claims with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the EEOC, both of which found no probable cause. He then filed a suit in United States District Court, alleging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1988, New York State Human Rights Law, and common law claims. The court dismissed the Title VII claim due to untimely filing, the § 1981 claim because it predated the 1991 Civil Rights Act, the New York Human Rights Law claim due to prior administrative adjudication, and all common law claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of implied contract, etc.) based on statute of limitations or lack of legal basis under New York law. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant and dismissed all claims.

Racial discriminationEmployment terminationSummary judgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 198142 U.S.C. § 1988New York State Human Rights LawCommon law claimsStatute of limitationsAt-will employment
References
17
Case No. ADJ7760800
Regular
Jan 24, 2012

FRANK BOWEN vs. HYATT REGENCY IRVINE, GALLAGHER BASSETT ORANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Frank Bowen's Petition for Reconsideration in case ADJ7760800. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, giving great weight to their credibility determination. Therefore, the petition was denied based on the reasoning provided by the WCJ.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJ's Opinion on DecisionReport and RecommendationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.credibility findingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder Denying ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeApplicantDefendant
References
1
Case No. CA 14-01911
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

REGENCY OAKS CORPORATION v. NORMAN-SPENCER MCKERNAN, INC.

Regency Oaks Corporation, a professional employer organization, filed a fraud action against Norman-Spencer McKernan, Inc., an insurance agency. The plaintiff alleged that an employee of the defendant provided a falsified workers’ compensation insurance policy and a certificate of liability insurance, directing premium payments to his private company, PIM, under the false pretense that PIM was a division of the defendant. After receiving a penalty from the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, plaintiff received a forged letter confirming coverage. The defendant's employee was later terminated for embezzlement from another client. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, concluding that plaintiff reasonably relied on the employee's apparent authority.

FraudApparent AuthorityWorkers' Compensation InsuranceEmployee MisconductSummary JudgmentInsurance Agency LiabilityProfessional Employer OrganizationFalsified DocumentsAgency LawAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beckford v. Irvin

Plaintiff Easton Beckford, an inmate, sued defendants Irvin, Kruppner, and the State of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act for Eighth Amendment and ADA violations. A jury awarded Beckford $15,000 in punitive damages from Irvin, $10,000 from Kruppner, and $125,000 in compensatory damages from the State of New York. The court addressed plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and defendants' motion for a thirty-day extension to file a Notice of Appeal. The plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees of $50,898.56 was granted, with $6,250 to be applied from the plaintiff's judgment. The defendants' motion for an extension was denied.

Attorneys' FeesPrison Litigation Reform ActAmericans with Disabilities ActEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual Punishment42 U.S.C. § 1983Punitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesWestern District of New YorkLegal Expenses
References
21
Case No. ADJ8555171, ADJ10259448, ADJ11129372
Regular
Apr 28, 2023

APOLINAR DEL HOYO vs. ARCHSTONE HARBORVIEW, ACE GROUP/ESIS, IRVINE COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE/SEDGWICK

The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's July 21, 2020, Findings and Award and returned the matter for further proceedings. This decision stemmed from defendant Irvine Company's petition for reconsideration, arguing the WCJ failed to adequately explain its determination of Irvine as the responsible carrier for cumulative trauma injury in ADJ10259448. The Board found the WCJ's report deficient and that crucial elements for determining liability under Labor Code sections 5412 and 5500.5 were not adequately addressed or determined. Consequently, the case is remanded for the WCJ to properly address issues of injury, date of disability, knowledge of causation, and the relevant timeframes for establishing liability.

Labor Code sections 5500.55412cumulative traumadate of injurydisabilityknowledge of causationemployer liabilitystatute of limitationsWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After Reconsideration
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Hyatt Corp.

The plaintiff initiated an action to recover damages for personal injuries after slipping and falling on a wet door mat at the Grand Hyatt Hotel. She sued the hotel owners and two contractors, Harvard Maintenance, Inc., and Platinum Maintenance Services Corp. The defendants Harvard and Platinum moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment. The appellate court found that Harvard and Platinum established, prima facie, that they did not assume a comprehensive and exclusive maintenance obligation and did not launch a force or instrumentality of harm, thus owing no duty of care to the plaintiff.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractor LiabilityDuty of CareSnow RemovalSlip and FallMaintenance AgreementAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
14
Case No. ADJ7098412; ADJ7098413 ADJ7098414; ADJ7099557 ADJ7095101; ADJ7095118
Regular
Dec 16, 2010

ERLINDA SALES vs. HYATT REGENCY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The WCAB dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely and unverified, and denied her petition for removal. However, the Board granted removal on its own motion, rescinded the WCJ's Minute Order requiring the applicant to attend a PQME, and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings. The applicant argued the Minute Order denied due process by not allowing a hearing on her contention of defendant's non-compliance with medical evaluation procedures.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinute OrderPanel Qualified Medical ExaminationPQMEDr. KimLabor Code section 4062.2(c)Due ProcessUntimely Petition
References
12
Case No. ADJ6786767
Regular
Sep 30, 2011

PAMELA SMITH vs. HYATT REGENCY, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's Petition for Reconsideration and Removal related to a workers' compensation claim for cumulative back injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration, finding the WCJ's order to further develop the record was not a final, appealable decision. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, as the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCJ's decision to reject medical opinions from Dr. Kaplan due to inconsistencies and lack of substantial evidence was upheld, supporting the need for further record development.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDismissalDenialCumulative traumaBack injuryPastry chefTemporary disabilitySubstantial evidence
References
8
Case No. ADJ3584368 (AHM 0049668)
Regular
May 15, 2013

STEVE GIANNINI vs. CITY OF IRVINE

This case involves a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision concerning attorney's fees. Following a Court of Appeal order to award fees for responding to the defendant's writ of review, the parties stipulated to $3,547.12. The Board has accepted this stipulation. An award is therefore made in favor of applicant's counsel, Leonard Stern, against the City of Irvine for this appellate attorney's fee. This fee is in addition to any compensation otherwise payable to the applicant.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTEVE GIANNINICITY OF IRVINECORVEL INSURANCE COMPANYADJ3584368ADJ2266028ADJ4420242ADJ4296333ADJ1443533ADJ814285
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 56 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