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

Edwards v. Jet Blue Airways Corp.

Glenn Edwards initiated a putative class action against Jet Blue Airways Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law, article 19, § 650 et seq., concerning overtime compensation. Edwards claimed that Jet Blue failed to pay him at 1.5 times his regular rate for hours worked beyond 40 that were exchanged with coworkers. Jet Blue sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) § 213 (b) (3) for air carriers, which it argued was incorporated into New York's 12 NYCRR 142-2.2. The court acknowledged the applicability of the FLSA exemption to Edwards due to Jet Blue's status as an air carrier. However, the court ruled that 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 still mandates overtime pay at 1.5 times the basic minimum hourly rate for exempt employees, which in this context means their regular pay rate plus one half times the New York State minimum wage. Finding that Edwards' complaint sufficiently alleged inadequate overtime compensation under New York law based on this calculation, the court denied Jet Blue's motion to dismiss.

Class actionOvertime payLabor LawFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Minimum wageAir carrier exemptionWage and hour disputeMotion to dismissNew York employment law
References
18
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05690
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2023

Medina v. Jet Aviation Holdings USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Paul Medina, a delivery person, suffered a head injury while loading humanitarian cargo onto an airplane in a New Jersey hangar. He initiated a personal injury lawsuit against various entities including Jet Aviation Holdings USA, Inc., and Third Point LLC, alleging negligence in hangar operation and his direction. The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed appeals concerning two Supreme Court orders regarding motions to dismiss. The court unanimously reversed the denial of dismissal for the Jet Aviation defendants, granting their motion due to a lack of personal jurisdiction over the foreign subsidiary and its parent companies. The court also unanimously modified the denial of dismissal for Daniel S. Loeb, Third Point LLC, and Teragram, LLC, granting dismissal against Loeb and Teragram for insufficient pleading and lack of duty, respectively, but affirmed the denial against Third Point LLC regarding potential vicarious liability.

Personal InjuryJurisdictionVicarious LiabilitySpecial Employee DoctrineCorporate VeilMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewNegligenceParent Company LiabilityCorporate Officer Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ8710092
Regular
Oct 22, 2014

MARQUES MURRELL vs. NEW YORK JETS, LLC, A DELAWARE\nLIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, dba NEW\nYORK JETS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE\nCOMPANY c/o BERKLEY SPECIALTY\nUNDERWRITING MANAGERS, LLC

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal filed by New York Jets, LLC. The Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which was not demonstrated. While disagreeing with the WCJ's specific reasoning regarding *Johnson*, the Board found that factual issues regarding jurisdiction warrant keeping the case together. Therefore, the petition was denied as reconsideration remains an adequate remedy.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationSubject Matter JurisdictionFactual IssuesBifurcationJohnson caseDelawar Limited Liability Company
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2003

Lotysz v. Montgomery

Greg Lotysz, an employee of the New York Jets, sued defendant-respondent doctors for medical malpractice after being treated for work-related injuries. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. This decision was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court found that the defendant doctors were salaried Jets employees providing medical services to fellow employees, and the plaintiff's treatment was solely employment-related. Consequently, the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Medical malpracticeWorkers' CompensationEmployee doctorsExclusive remedySummary judgmentAppellate DivisionEmployer liabilityPersonal injuryNew York County
References
2
Case No. ADJ3972762
Regular
Apr 11, 2014

LUCILLE MALDONADO vs. JET DELIVERY SERVICE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for removal, which sought to rescind an order closing discovery and continuing the trial. The lien claimant argued they had not received necessary medical reports to prove their lien. The majority adopted the WCJ's reasoning for denial, while a dissenting commissioner argued the defendant violated discovery rules by failing to serve the reports and that the case should have been postponed until service occurred. The dissenting opinion also highlighted the lien claimant's potential violation of Rule 10622 by failing to disclose reports.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantMedical ReportsMedical-Legal ReportsWCJWCAB Rule 10770.1(h)WCAB Rule 10608(f)WCAB Rule 10608(b)Compromise and ReleaseBurden of Proof
References
0
Case No. ADJ8617543
Regular
Mar 22, 2018

MARIA MORALES vs. JET ABRASIVES INC., HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to a lien claimant whose lien was dismissed for failure to appear at a conference. The Board found the dismissal void because the lien claimant never received notice of the hearing. Additionally, the Board noted procedural defects, including the lack of a required notice of intent to dismiss and improper service of the dismissal order. Consequently, the Board rescinded the dismissal and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimLien conferenceWCAB rule 10562Lack of noticeReport and RecommendationVoid ab initioNotice of intent to dismissProof of serviceWCAB Rule 10500
References
0
Case No. ADJ3192331
Regular
Feb 17, 2010

AURORA REALIVASQUEZ vs. TURBOT JET PRODUCTS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that awarded 50% permanent disability, apportioned from a prior award. The applicant argued the defendant failed to prove the prior award's disability overlapped with the current injury. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding the defendant met its burden by demonstrating overlapping subjective factors of disability between the prior and current injuries, based on medical reports from Dr. Capen and Dr. Danzig. This overlap in disability affecting the same earning abilities justified the apportionment under Labor Code section 4664(b).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityApportionmentIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryShoulder InjuryBimanual InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
4
Case No. ADJ7782059
Regular
Mar 12, 2013

ERNESTO GARCIA FLORES vs. JET SETS, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's contention that the WCJ's finding of cumulative industrial injury was not supported by substantial medical evidence. The WCJ relied on a physician's report, but the provided employment history was demonstrably inaccurate, rendering the expert opinion unsubstantial regarding causation. Consequently, the Board rescinded the original decision and returned the case to the trial level for further development of the record. This allows for a new decision after the WCJ re-examines the evidence and potentially amends the date of injury.

WCABReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaSubstantial Medical EvidenceWCJReport and RecommendationLabor CodeMedical ProbabilityInaccurate History
References
7
Case No. ADJ8260810
Regular
Jul 07, 2015

DANIEL STRYZINSKI vs. NEW YORK JETS, THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TIG INSURANCE, ATLANTA FALCONS, PITTSBURGH STEELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision that California lacks jurisdiction over his cumulative trauma claim. The ALJ found that the applicant's participation in only 21 out of 275 professional football games played in California did not establish a sufficient connection to the state for due process purposes. The majority opinion relied on the *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)* case, holding that California's interest was not substantial enough to assert jurisdiction given the applicant's lack of residency and hiring in the state. A dissenting opinion argued that California has a legitimate interest in compensating workers injured within its borders and that the applicant's connection was more than "de minimis," thus supporting WCAB jurisdiction.

StryzinskiProfessional AthleteCumulative TraumaJurisdictionDue ProcessFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)Legitimate and Substantial InterestDe MinimisExtraterritorial ProvisionsLabor Code section 3600.5
References
2
Case No. ADJ11706407
Regular
Apr 15, 2025

Matthew Hatchette vs. Oakland Raiders, TIG/Fairmont Premier Insurance Company, Jacksonville Jaguars, ACE American Insurance Company, New York Jets, USF&G, Chubb, Pacific Employers Insurance

This case concerns Matthew Hatchette, a former professional football player, and his claims of continuous trauma injuries against multiple NFL teams and their insurers. Defendant Jacksonville Jaguars filed a Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) findings regarding jurisdiction and the applicability of res judicata. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition to conduct a thorough review of the factual and legal issues, thereby deferring a final decision on the merits. The Board's decision also addressed the timeliness of the petition under the recently amended Labor Code section 5909.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMatthew HatchetteOakland RaidersJacksonville JaguarsNew York JetsTIG/Fairmont Premier Insurance CompanyChubbUSF&GGallagher Bassett ServicesZenith Insurance Company
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 12 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